I didn't think the goverment could do this

"Obama prosecutor 'silencing Americans with threats of arrest'"

WND:  Reaction to threatening comments from President Obama’s U.S. attorney in Idaho following the release of two Muslim boys accused of sexually assaulting a 5-year-old girl have been swift and severe.

Wendy J. Olson, the U.S. attorney for Idaho, indicated in a statement Friday that Idahoans who spread “false or inflammatory information” about the alleged Muslim perpetrators may be subject to prosecution. The boys accused are ages 14, 10 and 7, and their families have been evicted from the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, where the assault allegedly took place.

The two older boys are immigrants from Sudan and the youngest is from Iraq. They are believed to be refugees but the government has yet to say exactly how they entered the country, only that they have come “within the last two years.”

The Olson statement that is drawing fire from First Amendment advocates is as follows:

“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law.”

She made the comment after some websites published erroneous information that the girl was “gang raped” at “knifepoint” by “Syrian refugees.”

"Supreme Court appears skeptical of union fees"

Los Angeles Times: The Supreme Court sounded ready Monday to deal a severe blow to public employee unions by striking down laws that require all workers to help pay for collective bargaining.

In its tone and questioning, the argument resembled more of a congressional hearing at which Republicans took one position, Democrats argued the opposite, and there appeared little chance to sway either side....

The court’s conservative majority, which has long voiced skepticism about mandatory union fees, questioned whether such a distinction was relevant.

“Everything that is collectively bargaining is within the political sphere,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.

So the key question, according to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is “whether or not individuals can be compelled to support political views that they disagree with.”

Meanwhile, the four Democratic appointees, playing defense, said the court should not upset the 1977 ruling.

California and 22 other mostly “blue” states have union-friendly laws requiring fair-share fees. If the court were to declare them unconstitutional, it would upset “tens of thousands” of contracts, said Justice Elena Kagan, and affect as many 10 million public employees.

Public-sector unions will take a financial hit if the court strikes down the fair-share fees, also known as agency fees. Some public employees might opt to stop paying dues entirely, confident that they will nevertheless receive the benefits of the union’s collective bargaining.

But it is unclear how badly unions will be hurt. The chief justice said he doubted unions were “going to collapse.”

Yale students sign 'petition' to repeal the first amendment

America's best and brightest.

The Land of the Free?

You remember the Bakery in Oregon who were driven out of business because they did not want to bake a wedding cake for a same sex ceremony? They were fined $135,000 for the pain and suffering of the lesbian couple who was turned away to get a cake from the thousand other bakeries who would be happy to do it for them because they want to drive these people out of business. Which they succeeded in doing because the bakery had to shut its doors.

Now for the rest of the story.

The Commission of Labor Brad Avakian  not only levied this fine on a first time offense but he also imposed a gag order on the Klein's (the owners of the bakery) who were the owners of the now defunct business. He ordered them to "cease and desist" from speaking publicly about not wanting to make cakes for same sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. In other words he has abrogated their First Amendment rights.

The Social Justice Warriors also went after the Go Fund Me account that was set up to aid the Klein's.  It was closed down so that people who support the Klein's stand would be silenced and not be able to help them. Their First Amendment rights also mean nothing in America these days.

Blogger Kelse Harkness has a copy of the order in which the Commissioner abrogates the First Amendment rights of the Bakers to talk about why they did not want to bake this cake. The latest decision of the Supreme Court does not lead one to believe that they will support these bakers tin the exercise of  their First Amendment rights to practice their religion. Not only are they being forced out of business but they are being gagged at the same time.

You know in New York City they don't even do that to murderers. You can't even ask a job applicant if he had a felony murder on his record. Because murderers, rapists and thieves have rights. Traditional religious people. Not so much.

So on the Fourth of July let's celebrate our Freedom in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Shut up and take it.

CNN Chris Cuomo Amends the US Constitution via Twitter

 

 

Lawsuit argues Ferguson case was unique... Grand Juror sues to talk

"The suit was filed against McCulloch, who oversaw the investigation, because his office would be responsible for bringing charges against the juror, according to the ACLU..."

"Right now there are only 12 people who can't talk about the evidence out there," ACLU attorney Tony Rothert said. "The people who know the most — those 12 people are sworn to secrecy. What (the grand juror) wants is to be able to be part of the conversation."

The grand juror behind the lawsuit believes "the current information available about the grand jurors' views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," the lawsuit contends. "Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors' view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with Plaintiff's own."

"The Supreme Court has said that grand jury secrecy must be weighed against the juror's First Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis," Rothert said. "The rules of secrecy must yield because this is a highly unusual circumstance. The First Amendment prevents the state from imposing a lifetime gag order in cases where the prosecuting attorney has purported to be transparent."

"Pearl Harbor On The First Amendment"

Says Alan Dershowitz link

The metaphor may be unfortunate, given that we don't know whether Sony's decision came from Tokyo -- do we?

[added] Since when did "we the people" not include businesses in America? link 

Volokh: "Not safe to display American flag in American high school"

"Today’s Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2014) upholds a California high school’s decision to forbid students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. (See here and here for more on this case.)"

The court points out that the rights of students in public high schools are limited — under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. School Dist. (1969), student speech could be restricted if “school authorities [can reasonably] forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” stemming from the speech...

After citing the relevant cases, which I left out here, Volokh expands on what the decision means and it's possible ramifications.

This is a classic “heckler’s veto” — thugs threatening to attack the speaker, and government officials suppressing the speech to prevent such violence. “Heckler’s vetoes” are generally not allowed under First Amendment law; the government should generally protect the speaker and threaten to arrest the thugs, not suppress the speaker’s speech...

The 9th Circuit decision may thus be a faithful application of Tinker, and it might be that Tinker sets forth the correct constitutional rule here...

Yet even if the judges are right, the situation in the school seems very bad. Somehow, we’ve reached the point that students can’t safely display the American flag in an American school, because of a fear that other students will attack them for it — and the school feels unable to prevent such attacks (by punishing the threateners and the attackers, and by teaching students tolerance for other students’ speech). Something is badly wrong, whether such an incident happens on May 5 or any other day.

And this is especially so because behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated.

WAPO, via an Iowa hawk tweet of Instapundit.

Washington Examiner" "New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections"

"The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs." Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment."

The initiative, known around the agency as "the CIN Study" (pronounced "sin"), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. "This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced," says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC's five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). "I've never had any input into the process," adds Pai, who brought the story to the public's attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

Rush spoke at some length yesterday abut this Obama's FCC initiative.

Here are the details if this is the first you are hearing of this. "The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly --" I'm reading from RedState.com, Matthew Clark. It's the best summary of the details. The Regime "is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media. Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous ... this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner."

"Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its 'Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,' or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring. The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about 'the process by which stories are selected' and how often stations cover 'critical information needs,' along with 'perceived station bias' and 'perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.'"

“I get to look at naked girls all day.”

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.