Thousands of churches across the nation — Catholic, Lutheran, nondenominational, and more — are saying no to governors still curtailing Americans&#8217; First Amendment rights under the guise of &#8220;safety.&#8221;
In Minnesota, over 700 Catholic and Lutheran churches acquired assistance from a law firm, <a href="https://www.becketlaw.org">Becket Law</a>, to stand their ground against the infringement of their religious freedom, informing Democratic Governor Tim Walz that they will be re-opening their churches on May 26 with or without his consent.
Similarly, a movement headed by megachurch pastor Brian Gibson dubbed &#8220;<a href="https://peaceablygather.com">Peaceably Gather</a>&#8221; has reportedly gained steam with thousands of churches across the country signing on to reopen their houses of worship despite lockdown orders.
&#8220;Minnesota Catholics and Lutherans tell [Governor Tim Walz] they are reopening churches on May 26 — after the Governor announced malls, salons, tattoo parlors, &amp; casinos can open, but churches can’t,&#8221; Becket Law announced Wednesday. &#8220;The leadership of over 700 Catholic and Lutheran churches, represented by [BECKET Law] &amp; [Sidley Law], told [Governor Tim Walz] and [Attorney General] Keith Ellison that the First Amendment doesn’t let the government put churches at the back of the line during reopening.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The leadership of over 700 Catholic and Lutheran churches, represented by <a href="https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BECKETlaw</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/SidleyLaw?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SidleyLaw</a>, told <a href="https://twitter.com/GovTimWalz?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GovTimWalz</a> and AG <a href="https://twitter.com/keithellison?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@keithellison</a> that the First Amendment doesn’t let the government put churches at the back of the line during reopening. <a href="https://t.co/KfQJ9IbS0n">https://t.co/KfQJ9IbS0n</a> (2/8)
&mdash; BECKET (@BECKETlaw) <a href="https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1263243345905713154?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The Minnesota Catholic Conference and The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod in Minnesota sent Governor Tim Walz <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/LCMS-cover-letter.pdf">separate</a> <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Letter-to-Governor-Tim-Walz-May-20-2020-R.pdf">letters</a> today announcing that they would be resuming worship services on May 26 despite Governor Walz’s current COVID-19 executive order which allows retailers to operate at 50 percent capacity but caps church worship services at ten people,&#8221; a <a href="https://www.becketlaw.org/media/minnesota-churches-tell-governor-walz-resuming-person-worship-services/">press release</a> from the law firm stated.
&#8220;Governor Walz’s latest re-opening order allows the Mall of America to open its doors to those seeking retail therapy but disallows churches from providing spiritual healing to their congregations,&#8221; the law firm argued. &#8220;At the same time, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sent Governor Tim Walz and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Becket-Letter-to-Governor-Walz.pdf">a legal letter</a> explaining why continuing to keep churches closed violates the First Amendment. Also representing the Catholic and Lutheran Churches is global law firm Sidley Austin LLP.&#8221;
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
In a <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Letter-to-Governor-Tim-Walz-May-20-2020-R.pdf">letter</a> to Governor Walz dated May 20, the Catholic Bishops of Minnesota said they will resume public masses on May 26.
</div>
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;Earlier this afternoon, the Catholic Bishops of Minnesota announced that they would resume public masses beginning May 26,&#8221; reads the letter, signed by Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis Bemard A. Hebda. &#8220;The attached letter from the Bishops to their faithful, explaining the decision, was posted on all six of the diocesan websites.&#8221;
&#8220;We do not take this step lightly,&#8221; the letter continues, adding that it&#8217;s of &#8220;concern&#8221; &#8220;that we still are without a clear roadmap, metrics, or definite timeline from your administration about a phased re-opening.&#8221;
&#8220;Executive Order 20-56 &#8230; seems to have taken a step backward, imposing an explicit prohibition on faith-based gatherings where none had existed,&#8221; Hebda writes. &#8220;Your willingness, at the same time, to allow a &#8216;click forward&#8217; for other sectors and activities on your dial-many of which cannot be classified as essential as the life of faith, prompts us to consider it necessary to move forward. We certainly remain ready to work with your administration as events unfold and circumstances change.&#8221;
</div>
<div class="column">
The letter notes that Catholics &#8220;voluntarily suspended our public worship without anyone&#8217;s direction or your executive order. Now, in light of the relevant information available, and based on the public activities that your administration is now allowing, we have concluded that many of our parishes are ready to safely resume Mass, albeit in a limited way, next week.&#8221;
&#8220;We feel compelled by pastoral need to provide our people with an opportunity to come together on pentecost, before the Easter season concludes,&#8221; the letter adds, &#8220;we hope that the care with which we have prepared for a return to in-person worship will publicly manifest that we continue to share your goal of protecting lives and safeguarding the well-being of the community during this challenging time.&#8221;
This Sunday, Pastor Gibson is headed to a church in the blue state of Illinois to preach to the faithful. According to the pastor, the church he&#8217;ll preach at has a mostly immigrant congregation that fled religious targeting.
On PeaceablyGather.com, the movement offers pro-bono services and advice from First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm with a focus on religious freedom. &#8220;Their services will be provided to you free of charge,&#8221; the site says.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Holy Bible

Thousands Of Churches Stand Up To Democratic Governors’ Lockdown Orders: We Are Opening. Period.

Coronavirus

First Amendment

Illinois

Minnesota

Religion

On Wednesday, Minnesota&#8217;s Democratic governor unveiled the state&#8217;s new timeline for its &#8220;Stay Safe&#8221; plan, which includes the mandate that places of worship not be allowed to hold any types of services for more than 10 people — whether inside or outside — while simultaneously allowing restaurants to serve up to 50 customers at a time in outdoor dining areas.
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted not only in a devastating economic crisis in the United States but a massive civil rights debate amid state and local mandates effectively prohibiting American citizens from exercising their constitutional rights, including First Amendment-protected rights of &#8220;the free exercise&#8221; of religion and the right to &#8220;peaceably to assemble&#8221; and &#8220;petition the government for a redress of grievances.&#8221; Several state and local mandates prohibiting &#8220;non-essential&#8221; entities from operating have ended up including churches, and some officials have even cracked down on churches providing safely socially distanced &#8220;drive-up&#8221; services.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) heaped fuel on the religious freedom fire on Wednesday in his unveiling of the state&#8217;s &#8220;Stay Safe&#8221; plan beginning June 1.
As noted by the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/minnesota-governor-allows-50-people-in-restaurants-but-limits-churches-to-10?fbclid=IwAR1YEoxp0_lwtdRxHSef_MXwDhJfN2IUMMTNpdX-LxKIBiDRbMzBuixWpm8">Washington Examiner</a>, Walz announced that while restaurants will be able to host up to 50 customers in their outdoor seating areas, churches will remain restricted to serving just 10 congregants at a time, whether indoors or outdoors.  The only remaining concession to churches is that they&#8217;re allowed to hold &#8220;drive-up&#8221; services, in which worshippers must remain in their cars and tune in to the message.
The restrictions on the number of people served by churches at one time includes funeral services and weddings.
Speaking about the glaring inconsistency in the state&#8217;s policy for restaurants versus places of worship, Walz offered a self-contradictory explanation about the &#8220;predictability&#8221; of who will show up at the various venues.
&#8220;I think, and I&#8217;m hearing strongly on this, of trying to figure out how we make that happen because I think the logic behind it, and I think, again, it was the predictability of who&#8217;s there,&#8221; said Walz, as reported by the Examiner. &#8220;But I think you could argue, &#8216;Boy, I see the same people every Sunday at my congregation and, in fact, the Smiths sat in the same pew every year for 30 years, so we know exactly where they&#8217;re at and we know exactly where they are.'&#8221;
&#8220;I just want to say that I think there is a very strong sense of urgency for us to figure this piece out around churches,&#8221; he assured residents. &#8220;And I say that about all the businesses, but I do think these pieces of people&#8217;s lives ⁠— we need to try and get it around. So, Dave, I would just tell you, I think it goes with the predictability piece of it. I will, again, say that I don&#8217;t think that it&#8217;s perfect, and I think there&#8217;s some things that we have to still continue to figure out.&#8221;
As detailed in Minnesota&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://mn.gov/covid19/for-minnesotans/stay-safe-mn/stay-safe-plan.jsp">Stay Safe</a>&#8221; plan page on the state government&#8217;s website, in Phase II (starting June 1; end date to be determined), several changes are taking place in which some social distancing measures are eased. Among them are the following:
<ul>
<li>Restaurants and Bars: Location: Outdoors; Capacity: 6 ft of distance must be maintained, not to exceed 50 customers; Reservations: Required; Masks: Required for workers, strongly recommended for customers</li>
<li>Places of Worship, religious services, weddings, and funerals: Indoors: 10 or less; Outdoors: 10 or less, or drive-in services per MDH guidelines</li>
</ul>
In Phase III, the places of worship will be allowed only 20 people indoors and a maximum of 100 for outdoor services:
<ul>
<li>Restaurants and Bars: Indoor dining with capacity restrictions and social distancing requirements [outdoor capacity presumably at least the 50-customer limit outlined in Phase II]</li>
<li>Places of Worship, religious services, weddings, and funerals: Indoors: 20 or less; Outdoors: 6 ft of distance, max of 100, must follow MDH guidance; Masks: Required for workers and attendees</li>
</ul>
The problem of the apparent targeting of places of worship has been widespread during the lockdown. In Illinois, several churches have filed a Federal lawsuit challenging Gov. J.B. Pritzker&#8217;s &#8220;Five Point&#8221; COVID-19 plan banning gatherings of more than 50 people for religious services until  &#8220;Phase 5,&#8221; which would be triggered by the creation of &#8220;a vaccine or highly effective treatment widely available or the elimination of any new cases,&#8221; which may not occur until 2021. As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/illinois-churches-sue-after-governor-says-religious-services-may-not-resume-for-up-to-a-year-under-coronavirus-plan">The Daily Wire</a> highlighted, like Minnesota&#8217;s plan, Pritzker&#8217;s &#8220;Five Point&#8221; treats places of worship unfairly:
<blockquote>[C]ritics of the plan were quick to point out that while Pritzker&#8217;s roadmap allows for individuals to crowd in retailers, restaurants, and even marijuana dispensaries (many of which have never closed, because they are listed as &#8220;essential&#8221; businesses in Illinois&#8217; coronavirus plans) but creates a de facto ban on the free exercise of religion, particularly when religious services require large gatherings or the sharing of food or drink, or feature practices not considered &#8220;orthodox&#8221; under Pritzker&#8217;s plan.
Critics also suggested Pritzker was looking for a &#8220;miracle cure&#8221; that may never come.
“While there is always a possibility that some miracle cure may emerge, that is entirely uncertain and should not be the basis for setting policy, especially policy in relation to our communities of faith,” Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society told CNS last week. &#8220;[Pritzker] has at least brought churches out of the abyss of ‘non-essential,’ but he has not fully elevated them to the heights of being an ‘essential’ business or operation.&#8221;</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bet-you-stay-home-now-hypokrits-church-that-refused-to-close-during-lockdown-gets-burned-down-investigated-as-arson">‘Bet You Stay Home Now Hypokrits’: Church That Refused To Close During Lockdown Gets Burned Down, Investigated As Arson</a>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

cst 25515 Gov. Walz press conference

Minnesota Governor: Restaurants Can Have 50 People, Churches Just 10

Constitution

A Mississippi church in the midst of a legal battle to stay open despite local shutdown orders was burned to the ground early Wednesday morning. According to first responders, the First Pentecostal Church of Holly Springs was vandalized and suffered a large explosion to the back of the church. The incident is being investigated as a criminal act of arson.
&#8220;I Bet you stay home now you hypokrits,&#8221; read one message spray painted on the church parking lot, Thomas More Society senior counsel and lawyer for the church Stephen Crampton told <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/mississippi-church-fire-investigated-arson">Fox News</a> on Thursday.
&#8220;First Pentacostal Church Holly Springs. Arson is Suspected,&#8221; reported Tom Dees of FOX 13 Memphis. &#8220;Investigators say the church was spray painted with graffiti and set on fire. There was a major explosion in the back of the church that blew out the front.&#8221;
<div id="fb-root"></div>
<script async="1" defer="1" crossorigin="anonymous" src="https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&amp;version=v7.0"></script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/TomDeesFOX13/posts/2835557363209838" data-width="500">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/TomDeesFOX13/posts/2835557363209838" class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
First Pentacostal Church Holly Springs. Arson is Suspected. Investigators say the church was spray painted with graffiti&#8230;
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/TomDeesFOX13/">Tom Dees FOX13 Memphis</a> on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/TomDeesFOX13/posts/2835557363209838">Wednesday, May 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
</div>
Jerry Waldrop, who has pastored at the church for 31 years, filed a lawsuit in April pushing back against local leaders&#8217; orders, which conflict with Republican Governor Tate Reeves&#8217; order, expressly designating churches as &#8220;essential&#8221; operations.
<div class="card collection-item " data-type="text">
<div class="card-content card-article">
&#8220;The 14-page document claims local police officers disrupted a mid-week bible study and the church’s Easter service 10 days prior,&#8221; reported <a href="https://www.wlbt.com/2020/05/20/mississippi-church-destroyed-by-arson-was-suing-city-holly-springs-over-safer-at-home-order/">WLBT 3</a>.
</div>
</div>
<div class="card collection-item " data-type="text">
<div class="card-content card-article">
The complaint says Waldrop &#8220;held outdoor services when possible but would hold them indoors while practicing social distancing during inclement weather,&#8221; the report noted, adding that the pastor &#8220;asked for a temporary restraining order to keep the City from preventing services inside the church building.&#8221;
<div class="card collection-item " data-type="text">
<div class="card-content card-article">
“It is very clear local municipalities can have guidelines that are more strict than the governor’s guidelines, but they cannot have guidelines that directly conflict with what we have put in place,” Gov. Reeves said Wednesday at a press conference.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Crampton suggested to Fox News that First Pentecostal Church was targeted for &#8220;being outspoken and somewhat firm about seeking to protect their Constitutional rights.&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;re in a time where I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s any secret that there&#8217;s a growing hostility toward churches, across the board,&#8221; the lawyer said. &#8220;And now, here are churches like First Pentecostal that are sort of stirring up the waters by being outspoken and somewhat firm about seeking to protect their Constitutional rights.&#8221;
&#8220;They&#8217;ve had bad comments [sent their way] on social media,&#8221; Crampton continued, adding, &#8220;There is just a segment that takes issue with the church standing up, and the church just being the church.&#8221;
Waldrop is unsure who could have burned down their church but said he&#8217;s undeterred about rebuilding.
“We’ve tacked our brains and we have no idea,” the pastor said, according to WLBT 3. “No enemies that we know of. We don’t know anyone that we even think could be capable of doing something like this.”
“We have a tight group that’s been faithful, so whatever means is necessary that’s what we’ll do,&#8221; Waldrop added.
As noted by Fox News, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills issued an order last month permitting First Pentecostal to stay open for drive-thru services.
“These were outrageous violations of these parishioners’ rights,” Crampton said of the ruling. “On both occasions, Holly Springs law enforcement personnel ignored the fact that all church members present were practicing social distancing and complying with all applicable health requirements. Bible study attendees were threatened with criminal citations for violation of Holly Springs’ Stay Home Order.”
“Due to the threats and the citation of Pastor Waldrop, the church members were fearful of holding services on Sunday and exercising their constitutionally protected rights,&#8221; he added.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Fire Line &#8211; Destoyed Home

‘Bet You Stay Home Now Hypokrits’: Church That Refused To Close During Lockdown Gets Burned Down, Investigated As Arson

The Department of Justice warned California Gov. Gavin Newsom that he was at risk of discriminating against religious groups with his state&#8217;s reopening strategy.
DOJ assistant attorney general Eric Dreiband sent a letter to Newsom on Tuesday saying that California has treated religious groups unfairly during its coronavirus lockdown, and that the state’s reopening strategy threatens to make that discrimination worse, according to the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-19/trump-justice-dept-accuses-california-of-violating-religious-rights-with-coronavirus-restrictions">Los Angeles Times</a>.
Dreiband said that Newsom’s stay-at-home order exempted some businesses and industries “regardless of whether the product they are selling and shipping are life-preserving products or not,” but the order bans church services and other religious gatherings. In Newsom’s reopening plans, restaraunts, shopping malls, and offices are allowed to open in phase 2, but houses of worship are not allowed to open until phase 3.
“This facially discriminates against religious exercise,” Dreiband wrote. “California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.”
The letter pointed out that many houses of worship across the country are implementing their own social distancing procedures, such as holding drive-through services.
“Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines,” Dreiband continued.
“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights,” Dreiband said. “The Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in stage 2 of the reopening plan.”
Newsom said on Monday that the state would begin lifting its ban on religious gatherings after certain benchmarks in controlling the spread of the virus, testing, and available hospital capacity are met, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/05/19/justice-department-tells-california-to-reopen-churches-1284597">Politico</a>.
“I want to just express my deep admiration to the faith community and the need and desire to know when their congregants can once again start coming back to the pews, coming back together,&#8221; Newsom said.
On Tuesday, two GOP lawmakers introduced a bill to the state legislature that would strip the governor of some of his emergency powers, according to The <a href="https://ktla.com/news/local-news/doj-warns-california-church-closures-may-violate-religious-freedoms-in-letter-to-newsom/">Associated Press</a>. Assemblyman Kevin Kiley said that Newsom was using his office’s emergency powers to “remake all of California law indefinitely.”
San Francisco attorney Harmeet Dhillon is handling several lawsuits filed against Newsom over his executive orders&#8217; impact on religious services. Dhillon is representing plaintiffs in at least 10 lawsuits <a href="https://calmatters.org/health/coronavirus/2020/05/california-shutdown-lawsuits-newsom-dhillon-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-executive-orders/">against</a> the state over the governor’s shutdown order on canceled weddings, closed businesses, and restrictions on religious activity.
“Literally, this country was founded on the concept that the king cannot tell the peasants how they may worship,” Dhillon told Politico. “Gov. Newsom may not tell people of faith that they can only worship in their homes.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Gavin Newsom

DOJ Says Newsom’s Lockdown ‘Discriminates Against Religious Exercise’

Department of Justice

freedom of religion

Sometimes even in the politically correct and intellectually stifling world of academia, a refreshing breeze of sanity reminds us that this is still America.
Professor Nicholas Damask of Scottsdale Community College posted three questions on a quiz about the inferential relationship between radical Islam and Islamic religious writings.
The section was on radical Islamic terrorism, and the questions were totally within the purview of the course and the instructor’s area of expertise, having written a doctoral dissertation decades ago on the subject of terrorism.
By way of disclosure, I was a member of Professor Damask’s doctoral committee back in the day. Even as a graduate student, he showed a remarkable capacity for scholarship, and the idea that he would use his talent to inflame passions about Islam, or any other religion, is simply wrong.
It should also be noted that while everyone should take professor ratings on the Internet with a huge grain of salt and a glass of Alka- Seltzer, for the two and a half decades Professor Damask has been teaching, he has received outstanding ratings and comments. An overwhelming majority of students indicated that they would take another course from him.
One student in the class took exception to the questions on the quiz and posted them on social media without any context. Predictably, they drew a lot of hateful comments, including death threats toward Professor Damask and his entire family.
Clearly, the purveyors of these threats no more represented traditional Islam than did Professor Damask’s questions.
If the professor’s questions could be seen as opining that Islam was not a religion of peace, the hateful responses ironically served as confirmation by embracing the worst stereotypes about Islam.
Social media is a representative sample of nothing, but the satire was inescapable nonetheless.
We might make allowances for the passions of the immature and uneducated, especially since social media does not always bring out the best in people.  What was difficult to comprehend was the reaction of Professor Damask’s superiors, who rushed to judgment, denied him any form of due process, issued an apology in his name without his permission, and then proposed that he become an acolyte of some unnamed imam who would school him in the true nature of the relationship between radical Islam and terrorism.
This assumes that there is one universally accepted understanding of that relationship. Indeed, one can almost hear Islamic religious leaders parsing the differences between the greater and lesser jihad, noting that traditional Islam has been hijacked by groups who kill in the name of Islam and whose victims are primarily Muslims.
It is Muslims who stand in the path and fight against the radical jihadists.
Of course, the bureaucrats at SCC probably understood none of that. Their rush to judgment was based on what they saw as a public relations and political correctness problem.
As some on social media were rushing to extinguish Professor Damask, his superiors were rushing to extinguish his First Amendment and due process rights – a pattern of behavior that, compared to radical Islam, is far more threatening to our democracy.
But in the midst of this brouhaha, voices of sanity emerged – and they are to be commended. Maricopa County Community College District Interim Chancellor, <a href="https://news.maricopa.edu/news-articles/mcccd-statement-academic-freedom" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://news.maricopa.edu/news-articles/mcccd-statement-academic-freedom&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1589834453304000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG3CKontcHSBZkXlm1XzySdA0kj7w">Dr. Steven R. Gonzales</a>, rose to remind the community of the purpose of an education and his abhorrence that Professor Damask’s due process and First Amendment rights had been trampled in a rush to judgment.  “The questions were taken out of context from a unit examining violent political and social movements, and the subject they addressed – the reliance of certain violent groups on religious texts as a justification for their actions – was within the scope of the course,” said Dr. Gonzales, adding that the individuals posting the objections were not even involved in the class.
<a href="https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2020/05/10/arizona-professor-receives-death-threats-for-connecting-islam-to-terrorism/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2020/05/10/arizona-professor-receives-death-threats-for-connecting-islam-to-terrorism/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1589834453304000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEAOE19q0AyRkPBRpSR6-mE8Uru5Q">Kathleen Winn</a>, governing board member of Maricopa County Community College District, noted the sheer hypocrisy and selectivity in the application of standards of offense. The showing, by another professor in the same district, of a pornographic movie denigrating Jesus had been defended on the grounds of academic freedom. The destruction of a Trump balloon covered in swastikas had been defended on similar grounds.
Only, a misperceived attack on Islam had drawn the ire of academic administrators and a rush to judgment unworthy of the positions they hold.
Amid the continuing caricature of itself that academia frequently presents, such sobering voices, reflective of our traditional values, inspire hope that America is still America.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.  
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati, and a distinguished fellow with the Haym Salomon Center.

books

MILLER: An Academic Controversy in Arizona Shows America is Still America

colleges

Islam

Israel

Social Justice

Last week, Facebook announced plans for a new “independent” Oversight Board. It seems Mark Zuckerberg has formed the board in the sincere hope that Facebook protect free expression, preserve user experience, and avoid accusations of tilting the scales of public discourse in one partisan direction. Unfortunately, the Board as it currently stands will only exacerbate the problems Zuckerberg hopes to solve.
While the censors may be independent of corporate control, they appear nearly uniform in their hostility to conservative views. Conservatives would more likely get a fair shake if Zuckerberg sat at a desk and censored our content himself, which while time-consuming might be a wiser course for the Facebook boss than outsourcing the curation of his platform to a group of unaccountable, likeminded, conspicuously non-American ideologues. Beyond the board’s composition, the sheer timing of this announcement just six months from a presidential election will confirm for many conservatives that Facebook intends to shut us up in 2020.
The board’s most glaring problem is ideological imbalance. The very first board member listed on the website works for George Soros, the most influential and radical leftist funder in the world. Next comes Evelyn Aswad, who ran a State Department office for Hillary Clinton. Third on the list is Endy Bayuni, the Indonesian senior editor of the Jakarta Post who in 2016 lamented, “Authoritarian regimes and dictators around the world must feel vindicated by the just-concluded presidential race in the United States, the one-time champion of liberal democracy.” Bayuni insists on calling himself “nonpartisan,” but that claim flops when one recalls his enthusiasm for the election of Barack Obama and the nomination for president of Hillary Clinton.
Not all of the picks lean left. One notable exception is Michael McConnell, a jurist who can boast both conservative bona fides on issues such as abortion and religious liberty and liberal goodwill stemming from his criticism of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore as well as his role in launching Barack Obama’s career. McConnell’s legal colleagues on the board seem less fair-minded. Jamal Greene, a liberal law professor who advised Kamala Harris during the vicious Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, once described Trump’s election as “a failure of American politics” and his lack of a primary challenger in 2020 as a “straightforward failure of democratic political technology.” Greene will serve as co-chairman of the board, where he will be joined by fellow law professor Pamela Karlan, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee in favor of impeaching President Trump.
The board’s overwhelmingly foreign composition has expressed similar antipathy to the President, which one might well accept in the spirit of free expression. Unfortunately many of those members have followed their criticism with calls for outright censorship. Pakistani non-profit leader Nighat Dad called Trump “evil” and suggested we “build a wall around him” to “#BanTrump.” Australian professor Nicolas Suzor once “loved” a comparison of Trump to Hitler and suggested Twitter ban the President. Alan Rusbridger, the editor-in-chief of the UK’s most prominent left-wing newspaper encouraged news networks to black out Trump’s press briefings on coronavirus.
Even somewhat right-leaning board members seem shaky. John Samples, a vice president at the libertarian Cato Institute, has publicly bemoaned President Trump’s “assault on American institutions” and accused him of opposing “basic ideals underpinning liberal democracy.” Opposition to “basic ideals underpinning liberal democracy” sounds like prime grounds for censorship, wouldn’t you say? And board member Damian Green, though technically a conservative member of the British parliament, would fall squarely on the Left by American standards.
Speaking of American standards, one can’t help but notice how few Americans will oversee one of the most successful American companies in history. Just five of the twenty people who “will make final and binding decisions on whether specific content should be allowed or removed from Facebook and Instagram&#8221; hail from the United States, where freedom of speech means something rather different than it does in Denmark or Pakistan. Even relatively tolerant countries fine and jail people for expressing heterodox views. America uniquely protects speech. Perhaps Facebook has selected so disproportionately international a group because the majority of Facebook users live outside the United States. But Facebook would not exist—it would be unthinkable—outside the particularly robust American conception and defense of free expression. Americans should constitute a far greater percentage of the next twenty Oversight Board members.
The board chairmen promise, “We are all committed to freedom of expression within the framework of international norms of human rights.” But “international norms” regarding free expression pale in comparison to our own. What a sad irony for a great American company. Facebook began as a platform that promised the expansion of free expression—that is, a uniquely American tradition of free expression—around the world. Now that platform promises to constrict at home the good it seeks to expand abroad. In attempting to please everyone, the Oversight Board as currently constituted will appease no one and heap ever more blame on its founder, to whom it can never again be held accountable. Call it mission drift, call it madness. In any case, Mark Zuckerberg should call for a new plan before it’s too late.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Facebook

KNOWLES: Facebook Risks Constricting At Home What It Seeks To Expand Abroad: Free Expression

Donald Trump

Free Speech

In a perfect world Dave Rubin wouldn’t have to write “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Burn-this-Book-Thinking/dp/B07W8H9WX7/ref=sr_1_1?crid=P7VE3SUAPN3L&amp;dchild=1&amp;keywords=don%27t+burn+this+book+dave+rubin&amp;qid=1588614905&amp;sprefix=don%27t+burn+this+book%2Caps%2C195&amp;sr=8-1">Don’t Burn This Book</a>.”
The “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng">Rubin Report</a>” host wants his fellow Americans to agree to disagree and maybe share a craft beer later. Sounds like ye olde American experiment, right?
Not the 2020 version, sadly.
Rubin accidentally joined the Intellectual Dark Web by chatting with folks from both sides of the aisle. Now, he’s using free speech’s decline as a tool to share his life story, and more, in his easily digested memoir.
“Don’t Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in an Age of Unreason” wants to open our minds while sharing his right-leaning take on the culture at large.
Rubin shows a flair for self-awareness while trashing what passes for journalism today.
“If it weren’t for [the mainstream media’s] abject failure to do their jobs, you’d have no idea who I was,” he writes.
“Don’t Burn This Book” offers a primer on Fake News as well as Rubin revealing what happened when he shamed a journalist for trafficking in it.
If you follow any of the biggest names in news the answer won’t surprise you.
Rubin, who is gay, defends straight white men mid-book, a section sure to trigger the usual suspects. It’s more about the Left’s sense of “self-loathing” as much as how Leftists clash with a certain civil rights leader’s <a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_115056">famous line.</a>
Part of the book finds Rubin weighing in on a series of hot button issues &#8212; the Second Amendment, abortion and more. He peels off a few nuggets about each, taking firm but reasonable stances along the way.
It still feels like a detour, and an unnecessary one. His whole thesis revolves around thinking for yourself. Perhaps he could break down in depth how he came to a few of these conclusions, a primer for processing facts en route to a bedrock principle. As is, the chapter marks the book’s weakest point.
“Book” also isn’t as riotous as one might expect given Rubin’s stand-up chops. A few laugh lines prove ineffective, though others more than live up to his background.
Far better is watching Dave Rubin, the media personality, spring to life. The author shares some personal struggles, both mental and physical, that led to his unexpected fame.
Rubin remains kindred spirits with Jordan Peterson, the Canadian intellectual who enraged the Left for telling people to clean their rooms and smiting government speech codes. They make an odd pair, but the chapter dedicated to their tour offers some humble life lessons.
Dress for success may sound obvious, but Rubin frames the old saw in a way that could make a difference. Even better is sharing Peterson’s knack for knowing his own limitations.
In today’s age of scorching hot takes, it’s more than acceptable to say, “I don’t know.” In fact, it’s refreshing and raw. Rubin’s thoughts on how we “catastrophize” everything in our First World lives is equally valuable, although it, too, could be better fleshed out.
The author burns plenty of calories repudiating the woke mob, giving specific techniques to keep the pitchforks at bay. He’s right, of course, but for many people the short-term costs will be considerable.
Rubin famously left the Left, which he says fueled the book’s initial premise. That transformation’s fallout, including hateful messages from former “allies” who now see him as Public Enemy Nos. 1-5, must be read to be believed.
Here’s a sample:
<blockquote>“Suddenly longtime friends are leaving venomous voice mails, calling me racist and misogynistic, while others send emails denouncing me as a hateful bigot who deserves to die.”</blockquote>
The scariest part of Rubin’s book is how he describes cultural forces aligning to silence dissent. He name checks an Economist story that dubbed The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro “a pop idol of the alt-right” as Exhibit A.
Yes, those eager to squelch free expression are on the march, but Rubin and “Don’t Burn This Book” have our backs.
“You’re not a Nazi, you’re just somebody who thinks for themselves,” he writes about Americans who don’t tow the progressive line. That sentence alone justifies Rubin’s cultural ascension. It’s also why “Don’t Burn This Book” should be read by every torch-wielding member of the social media mob.
A version of this review was also published at HollywoodInToto.com.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Dave Rubin

TOTO: Read Dave Rubin’s ‘Don’t Burn This Book’ Before It’s Too Late

Ben Shapiro

Jordan Peterson

Media Bias

Political Correctness

Social Media

Late-night television might get a jolt if Dave Rubin has anything to say about it.
The host of “The Rubin Report” tells The Daily Wire he’s exploring a late-night show of his own. And, given his unofficial membership in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dave-rubin-will-smith-welcome-intellectual-dark-alexander-ruiz">Intellectual Dark Web,</a> he might just revolutionize the format.
For now, Rubin is sharing his anti-P.C. sentiments in “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/609625/dont-burn-this-book-by-dave-rubin/">Don’t Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in an Age of Unreason</a>.” Part memoir, part teaching guide, the book asks readers to make up their own minds on hot button issues without fearing the woke mob.
“I’m not saying everyone should agree with me … [the book is] a framework for people to think about the issues of the day,” Rubin says.
“Don’t Burn This Book” excoriates the mainstream media, which he calls “deeply corrupt” and social justice scolds who eschew nuance and context.
That common-sense philosophy comes with a price in today’s culture. It’s something he explores in great depth in the book, but it’s also happening now. He cites a “massive coordinated campaign” on sites like Reddit to sink the book’s Amazon.com reviews.
“That is a modern book burning … It’s not actually tossing books into a bonfire. You burn a book because you don’t want its ideas to get out,” he says, noting his tome cracked the New York Times’ bestseller list despite the protests.
“Don’t Burn This Book” lets Rubin share how his shift from progressive to classic liberal cost him plenty of friends and even his mental and physical health.
He’s now a target due to his right-leaning ways, but liberals can’t escape the mob, either. He recalls a <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/461264-marianne-williamson-clarifies-hot-mic-moment">frank moment</a> from former presidential candidate Marianne Williamson about the Left/Right divide.
&#8220;What does it say that Fox News is nicer to me than the lefties are? What does it say that the conservatives are nicer to me,&#8221; she asked.
The far left “has become this giant movement of destruction, not a movement of creation,” Rubin says, something even select left-leaning guests share off-camera with him.
Rubin’s show hails from California, home for some of Hollywood’s biggest stars. Yet those same celebrities rarely have his, or our, backs on free speech matters.
“They’re a bunch of cowards,” he says flatly. “Hollywood is filled with more cowards than most industries… they’re not providing anything that’s unique. Even the greatest actor could be replaced by a marginal actor tomorrow and we’d still go see movies.
“I have actor friends who agree with me on some [free speech views],” he adds, but they won’t say so publicly.
Rubin’s mission on and off the page is to bring back lively, vigorous debate. He thinks he knows partly why it’s suddenly gone out of vogue. For too many people, the political fight is front and center in our lives.
And that’s only hurting us.
“If politics, the day to day … if that thing is you guiding philosophy every day you’ll wake up to be miserable,” he says, adding it’s why Leftists get so emotional when anyone critiques their world view.
The latter plays out on college campuses nationwide.
“This has become a condition of the Left. We must silence everyone we disagree with,” he says.
If a radical like the far-left activist Linda Sarsour attempts to speak at a university, conservatives will either not show up or assemble a small, peaceful protest against her ideas. Rubin notes. That’s hardly the case when a Ben Shapiro or Dennis Prager touches down on those same universities. Instead of protecting their right to be heard, campuses often kowtow to the woke mob.
“They’ll also tell you words are violent … and the same people say it’s OK to ‘<a href="https://reason.com/video/ok-punch-nazi-berkeley-students-campus/">punch a Nazi</a>,’” he notes of those far-left voices.
He playfully compares the treatment of conservatives to how the Jedis were eliminated by “Order 66” in “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.”
Yes, Rubin is a “Star Wars” enthusiast in between book deals and streaming interviews.
Not every liberal thinks this way, of course. Rubin cites <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/maher-save-democrats-trump/">HBO host Bill Maher</a>, who he calls the “last liberal fighting” for free speech.
“Most of them are completely cowed into silence,” he says.
Should Rubin join the late-night TV fray he doesn’t sound afraid of the competition. That’s particularly true during the current pandemic.
“We’re seeing how irrelevant these quote-unquote comedians are … they’re barely funnier than your neighbor, and they’re all ideologically the same, all Leftists,” Rubin says.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Dave Rubin Explains What Drove Him To Write ‘Don’t Burn This Book’

Dennis Prager

A woman previously convicted for her role in an infamous racial hoax has had one of her convictions overturned.
Four years ago, Asha Burwell and two other African-American women made national headlines when they claimed they were attacked by a dozen white people on a bus heading back to the State University of New York at Albany. The trio said the attackers hurled racial slurs at them during the encounter as well.
As is always the case with these allegations, students protested on campus before any evidence emerged to back up the women’s claims. The women also received support from across the country.
Police stunned the women’s supporters when <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/more-damaging-evidence-in-the-suny-albany-racial-hoax">they arrested</a> the three women and charged them with assault, criminal mischief, and filing a false police report. Burwell was convicted of filing a false police report and an additional charge of “falsely reporting an incident in the third-degree and causing a public alarm through her tweets,” <a href="https://www.timesunion.com/news/amp/Partial-reversal-in-CDTA-bus-case-cites-free-15189756.php">reported</a> the Times Union, Albany’s local newspaper.
The conviction was overturned by a 5-0 ruling by the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court’s Third Department. Burwell’s attorney, Frederick Brewington, cited President Donald Trump earlier this year while arguing for the conviction to be overturned. Brewington argued that it was a slippery slope to criminalize Burwell’s tweets, which repeated her false hate crime claims about the bus attack. He said criminalizing such false tweets would have wide-ranging consequences for people “from the top to the bottom,” including the president.
“If, indeed, we put this standard in place, someone would have to arrest our president immediately,” Brewington told the Times Union earlier this year.
On April 9, the justices of the appellate court found Burwell’s tweets to be protected by the First Amendment even though they were false and caused protests and a national outcry.
“Neither general concern nor the Twitter storm that ensued following defendant posting the false tweets are the type of ‘public alarm or inconvenience’ that permits defendant’s tweets to escape protection under the First Amendment and, therefore, the speech at issue here may not be criminalized,” wrote Justice Stanley Pritzker in the court’s decision.
The remaining four justices concurred.
“To that end, although it was not unlikely that defendant’s false tweets about a racial assault at a state university would cause public alarm, what level of public alarm rises to the level of criminal liability?” the decision added. “By the very nature of social media, falsehoods can quickly and effectively be countered by truth, making the criminalizing of flase speech on social media not actually necessary to prevent alarm and inconvenience. This could not be more apparent here, where defendant’s false tweets were largely debunked through counter speech; thus, criminalizing her speech… was not actually necessary to prevent public alarm and inconvenience.”
Even though Burwell lied, the decision is a win for the First Amendment.
Burwells conviction on falsely reporting the crime in the first place was upheld.
In February 2016, audio from two 911 calls and video footage from the bus revealed the women had lied. Footage showed one of the accusers threw the first punch and that it was one of the alleged victims who used a racial slur – toward a white passenger. Further, the 911 calls showed the women laughing about the incident. One said “I think it’s so funny” and “I beat up a boy” before getting connected to a dispatcher. Once connected, the accuser changed her tune and claimed she was the victim of a hate crime.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

NY bus

She Was Convicted Of Falsely Claiming A Racial Attack On A Bus. One Of Her Convictions Was Just Overturned.

Hate Crime

Hoax

New York

On Monday, the Center for American Liberty filed a lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for &#8220;depriving&#8221; Californians of their constitutionally protected rights of free speech, assembly and petition by effectively barring public protests through the enforcement of his &#8220;stay-at-home&#8221; orders.
In a press release Monday (full text below), the Center for American Liberty announced that it has filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Californians and in coordination with the high-profile firms of D. Gill Sperlein and the Dhillon Law Group. The lawsuit was filed &#8220;on behalf of clients Ron Givens and Christine &#8216;Chris&#8217; Bish,&#8221; who are suing Newsom, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and two other state officials &#8220;for depriving [them] of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights,&#8221; the release states. &#8220;The plaintiffs are also seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.&#8221;
&#8220;Governor Newsom issued <a href="https://praetorianpr.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8ed15fd6705f82cc1d408c82f&amp;id=6bbcf7fa12&amp;e=0721fdaa03" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Executive Order N-33-20 </a>on March 19, 2020, ordering all residents to &#8216;heed current State public health directives,&#8217; requiring all residents to stay at home,&#8221; the Center for American Liberty explains. &#8220;Neither the Governor’s Order or state public health directives exempt demonstrations, protests, or other First Amendment-protected activities from enforcement. The Governor has also specifically ordered the California Highway Patrol to deny protest/rally permits at the State Capitol, a core First Amendment speech venue. The Governor’s orders thus deny all California residents the right to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech, free assembly, and petition.&#8221;
&#8220;At a time when Californians are rightfully questioning the duration and extent of the stay at home orders, which are unevenly enforced and which have resulted in other Constitutional challenges, Governor Newsom has reacted to citizen protests not by addressing widespread concern, but simply by shutting down protest at the Capitol altogether, making no reasonable accommodations for this fundamental function in a free society,&#8221; said Harmeet Dhillon, CEO of the center. &#8220;Our lawsuit seeks to vindicate several core First Amendment rights — the right to free speech, to assemble, and to petition the government. The government is also violating fundamental equal protection and due process rights.&#8221;
“In times of crisis, governments often seek to curtail fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to assemble and petition the government. It is precisely at these times that those rights become the most important,” said Sperlein.
The lawsuit comes after California Highway Patrol <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-large-shutdown-protest-against-california-governor-protests-banned-on-any-state-property">announced</a> last week that they will no longer issue permits for any protests at any state properties, including the Capitol, which effectively bans residents from protesting.
Below is the full text of the <a href="https://libertycenter.org/center-for-american-liberty-sues-gov-newsom-over-ban-on-public-protests/">press release</a> issued by The Center for American Liberty on Monday:
<blockquote>The Center for American Liberty, in coordination with the <a href="https://praetorianpr.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8ed15fd6705f82cc1d408c82f&amp;id=942e545a02&amp;e=0721fdaa03" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Law Office of D. Gill Sperlein</a> and the <a title="https://praetorianpr.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8ed15fd6705f82cc1d408c82f&amp;id=3debc3e8d2&amp;e=0721fdaa03" href="https://praetorianpr.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8ed15fd6705f82cc1d408c82f&amp;id=3debc3e8d2&amp;e=0721fdaa03" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dhillon Law Group</a>, on behalf of clients Ron Givens and Christine “Chris” Bish, sued California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and two other state officials for depriving plaintiffs of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The plaintiffs are also seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Governor Newsom issued <a href="https://praetorianpr.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8ed15fd6705f82cc1d408c82f&amp;id=6bbcf7fa12&amp;e=0721fdaa03" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Executive Order N-33-20 </a>on March 19, 2020, ordering all residents to “heed current State public health directives,” requiring all residents to stay at home. Neither the Governor’s Order or state public health directives exempt demonstrations, protests, or other First Amendment-protected activities from enforcement. The Governor has also specifically ordered the California Highway Patrol to deny protest/rally permits at the State Capitol, a core First Amendment speech venue. The Governor’s orders thus deny all California residents the right to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech, free assembly, and petition.
Plaintiff Givens intends to protest the State’s failure to process background checks for those purchasing firearms as well as employment background checks for gun stores, effectively denying Californians of their Second Amendment rights.
Plaintiff Bish intends to protest the extent and duration of the State’s shelter-in-place order.
Both Plaintiffs Givens and Bish intend to hold their protests outside, on State Capitol grounds, in a safe and socially-distant manner. California Highway Patrol denied plaintiffs’ respective applications to use State Capitol grounds for their planned demonstrations depriving them of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
“In times of crisis, governments often seek to curtail fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to assemble and petition the government. It is precisely at these times that those rights become the most important,” said D.Gill Sperlein, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs.
“At a time when Californians are rightfully questioning the duration and extent of the stay at home orders, which are unevenly enforced and which have resulted in other Constitutional challenges, Governor Newsom has reacted to citizen protests not by addressing widespread concern, but simply by shutting down protest at the Capitol altogether, making no reasonable accommodations for this fundamental function in a free society,” said Chief Executive Officer of the Center for American Liberty, Harmeet K. Dhillon, whose law firm, Dhillon Law Group Inc., also represents the plaintiffs. “Our lawsuit seeks to vindicate several core First Amendment rights — the right to free speech, to assemble, and to petition the government. The government is also violating fundamental equal protection and due process rights. We will be seeking a temporary restraining order in federal court ordering that our clients and other citizens be permitted to protest safely and peacefully again, as is their right under both the California and U.S. Constitutions.”</blockquote>

Governor Gavin Newsom

California’s Gavin Newsom Sued For Ban On Public Protests

California

On Monday, &#8220;Operation Gridlock&#8221; came to California&#8217;s Capitol in Sacramento, where hundreds of demonstrators demanded &#8220;data over dictators&#8221; and &#8220;freedom not Newsom.&#8221; Despite having issued the permit to the protesters, California Highway Patrol, citing some demonstrators&#8217; decision to violate the &#8220;social distancing&#8221; requirements, announced Wednesday that they will no longer issue permits for any protests at any state properties, including the Capitol — a decision that effectively bans residents from exercising their First Amendment-protected right to peacefully protest on state property.
As was the case in Michigan&#8217;s &#8220;Operation Gridlock&#8221; protesting the &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/operation-gridlock-thousands-pack-roads-near-michigan-capitol-to-protest-governors-restrictive-stay-at-home-order">tyranny</a>&#8221; of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer&#8217;s highly restrictive &#8220;stay-at-home&#8221; order, hundreds of people showed up to the event at California&#8217;s Capitol Monday, with many staying in their vehicles, while others congregated on sidewalks and state property.
The permit, <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article242198781.html">The Sacramento Bee</a> reports, was &#8220;issued with the understanding that as many as 500 people would attend, according to the <a href="https://capitolpermits.chp.ca.gov/Event/EventCalendar" target="_self" rel="Follow noopener noreferrer">website the CHP maintains</a> listing events at the Capitol.&#8221; The outlet also notes that &#8220;a CHP officer was seen Monday morning directing an organizer where to place a lectern and speakers near the west steps of the building,&#8221; and multiple porta potties and hand-washing stations were set up for the event.
Asked Monday about why they chose to permit the event, CHP&#8217;s Capitol section &#8220;would not discuss Monday why the permit was issued, instead referring inquiries to the Senate, which has nothing to do with issuing such permits,&#8221; The Sacramento Bee reports.
But Senate President pro tem Toni G. Atkins’ office denied having any role in the decision to green light the protest, saying in a statement Tuesday, &#8220;The Senate was not consulted by CHP and the Senate does not issue permits for events outside the Capitol.&#8221;
On Wednesday, CHP announced that they will no longer be allowing protests on any statement property, the state&#8217;s Capitol included.
“In the interest of public safety and the health of all Californians during the COVID-19 pandemic, effective immediately the California Highway Patrol will deny any permit requests for events or activities at all state facilities, to include the State Capitol, until public health officials have determined it is safe to gather again,” the CHP said in a statement Wednesday, as reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494180-protests-banned-at-capitol-on-state-property-in-california">The Hill</a>.
&#8220;Permits are issued to provide safe environments for demonstrators to express their views,&#8221; the CHP explained. &#8220;In this case, the permit for the convoy was issued with the understanding that the protest would be conducted in a manner consistent with the state’s public health guidance. That is not what occurred, and CHP will take this experience into account when considering permits for this or any other group.&#8221;
The man who was the main focus of the protest, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, said Monday that while he knew about the planned protest, he though demonstrators would stay in their vehicles.
Speaking to the Los Angeles Times last week, Newsom addressed the rights of residents to protest. &#8220;I just want to encourage people that when you practice your free speech — which I don’t [just] embrace, I celebrate — just do so safely,&#8221; he <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/493517-newsom-tells-protestors-he-wont-be-swayed-by-protests">said</a>. &#8220;This virus knows no political ideology. It doesn’t know if you are Republican or Democrat, supporting the president, opposing the president, so practice physical distancing.&#8221;
The protests in California come as millions of residents in the state have filed for unemployment. &#8220;Over four weeks, 2.7 million claims were processed statewide, amounting to 1 of every 7 workers in the state’s 19.3-million-person labor force,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-04-17/california-jobs-unemployment-layoffs-march-2020">LA Times</a> reported last week. According to the most recent data, the state, home to nearly 40 million people, has had over 33,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 and over 1,250 deaths connected to the virus.
<div>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">subscriber</a>.  
</div>
<div></div>

California Shutdown Protest

California Bans Protests On State Property After Large ‘Shutdown’ Protest Against Gov. Newsom

It&#8217;s right there in the First Amendment: &#8220;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.&#8221;
The Founders knew that protest — as long as it&#8217;s peaceful — is an important part of a democracy, and they wanted to ensure Americans that in the new experimental government, they would have a way to express their displeasure (not exactly OK when dealing with a king).
But the coronavirus is changing everything, and it&#8217;s even beginning to challenge the concepts set out in the Bill of Rights.
During a protest last week in North Carolina calling for the reopening of the economy, the Raleigh Police Department arrested a person for violating the state&#8217;s stay-at-home orders.
When someone asked on Twitter, &#8220;What part of the governor’s order was violated here?&#8221; the police department answered, &#8220;Protesting is a non-essential activity.&#8221;
Who has the power to do what during a pandemic is unclear. Kristie Graunke, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, told <a href="https://reason.com/2020/04/15/raleigh-police-department-protesting-is-a-non-essential-activity/">Reason</a> that the First Amendment applies even under emergency orders, with caveats.
&#8220;Enforcement of emergency orders should not exacerbate racial disparities and should not lead to custodial arrest unless doing so is the last resort, because arresting people and sending them to jail is antithetical to public health. The goal of enforcement should be to facilitate long-term compliance rather than to punish non-compliance,&#8221; she said.
&#8220;Even under emergency orders, the First Amendment right to protected speech, including protest speech, remain in effect,&#8221; Graunke said. &#8220;But government officials may temporarily limit in-person gatherings in circumstances where medical and scientific experts agree that assemblies of people pose an immediate and grave risk to public health. Any public health measure limiting civil liberties must be re-evaluated when the medical and scientific consensus changes.&#8221;
Shea Denning, a criminal law expert at the University of North Carolina school of government, told the <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article242010496.html">News &amp; Observer</a> newspaper that &#8220;police do have the power to use criminal charges to enforce Cooper’s stay-at-home order.&#8221;
<blockquote>“I think what people might be thinking about is, ‘Well, don’t I still have constitutional rights? And can a state statute take away my rights?’” Denning said.
The answer, she said, is yes to both: A state of emergency doesn’t completely take people’s rights away, but it does let the government do things that might otherwise infringe on people’s rights.</blockquote>
The demonstration came a day after North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper said lifting his executive orders on COVID-19 would be a “catastrophe,” with experts saying it could flood the hospitals with patients. Since then, a social media campaign using the hashtag #ReopenNC has drawn much attention, with organizers calling for Cooper to recall the orders.
“We continue to see the spread of the virus accelerate through North Carolina but at a much slower pace because people are following the executive orders on social distancing,” Cooper said. “These models show consistently that our executive orders work and that wholesale lifting of those orders would be a catastrophe.”

Bill of Rights

‘Protesting Is a Non-Essential Activity,’ Police Department Says

North Carolina

Amid growing backlash to what many in the state view as an excessive &#8220;stay-at-home&#8221; order, which is the strictest in the nation, several Michigan residents and at least one business have filed federal lawsuits against Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer accusing her of &#8220;draconian encroachments&#8221; on constitutionally protected rights.
Whitmer has become the focal point of a growing protest movement in the state. On Wednesday, demonstrators carried out &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/operation-gridlock-thousands-pack-roads-near-michigan-capitol-to-protest-governors-restrictive-stay-at-home-order">Operation Gridlock</a>&#8221; at the Michigan State Capitol, where thousands of cars jammed the roads to protest Whitmer’s stay-at-home order, one of the most restrictive in the country.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thousands of people from all over Michigan are converging on our state Capitol today to protest the governor’s restrictive “Stay Home” order and get their voices, and car horns, heard. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OperationGridlock?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OperationGridlock</a> <a href="https://t.co/bgjH4wKCUQ">pic.twitter.com/bgjH4wKCUQ</a>
&mdash; MI House Republicans (@MI_Republicans) <a href="https://twitter.com/MI_Republicans/status/1250463355468423170?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Meanwhile, a <a href="https://www.change.org/p/michigan-state-house-impeach-governor-whitmer">petition</a> calling for the recall of the governor launched just a few days ago has already amassed over 260,000 signatures. &#8220;Her failures during the Covid-19 Corona Virus is causing more Michiganders to get sick,&#8221; the petition reads. &#8220;Closing and banning various non essential business’s and activities while leaving others open. Further promoting the pandemic.&#8221;
Now, at least two federal lawsuits have been filed against the embattled Democratic governor.
&#8220;In complaints filed on Tuesday and Wednesday, several Michigan residents and one business accused the Democratic governor of violating their constitutional rights by imposing her &#8216;Stay Home, Stay Safe&#8217; order,&#8221; <a href="https://news.trust.org/item/20200416145022-vjhiv">Reuters</a> reported Thursday.
Both of the lawsuits argue that Whitmer&#8217;s executive order violates the constitutional rights of residents, particularly their First Amendment and due process rights, Reuters reports. One of the lawsuits specifies that the order violates Second Amendment rights by closing down gun shops.
The lawsuit filed on Wednesday states that the plaintiffs &#8220;reasonably fear that the draconian encroachments on their freedom set forth in this complaint will, unfortunately, become the &#8216;new norm.'&#8221;
&#8220;The plaintiffs in Tuesday&#8217;s lawsuit filed in Detroit include four Michigan residents. One owns a landscaping business, and another said he is forbidden to see his girlfriend of 14 years because they live in different homes,&#8221; Reuters explains. &#8220;Two lawyers and the owner of a different landscaping business are plaintiffs in Wednesday&#8217;s lawsuit, which is being handled in Grand Rapids.&#8221;
The group that organized &#8220;Operation Gridlock,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/680520009367268/">Michigan Conservative Coalition</a> (MCC), similarly accuses Whitmer of infringing on constitutionally enshrined rights and points to a larger pattern of abuse by other progressive governors. A spokesperson for the group, Meshawn Maddock, told <a href="https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Operation-Gridlock-protest-underway-569659601.html">News 10</a> Wednesday that Whitmer’s order is doing unnecessary damage to businesses. &#8220;There is no reason why she can’t be looking at some safe ways to be opening up businesses. Instead of talking about what’s essential and nonessential, let’s talk about what’s safe and not safe,” Maddock told the local station. &#8220;Safe businesses and safe workers need to get back to work.&#8221;
&#8220;Citizens are frankly tired of being treated like babies,&#8221; MCC co-founder Marian Sheridan said in a statement. &#8220;As adults, we now know what needs to be done to stay safe.&#8221;
In response to the growing pushback against her &#8220;draconian&#8221; order, Whitmer insists that she really wants residents to have their freedom back and asked for more patience. &#8220;I want you to have your freedom, I want mine too. We will get to a place where we can be with our friends and family again, where restaurants will open again, where we can go back to work safely again,&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/operation-gridlock-thousands-pack-roads-near-michigan-capitol-to-protest-governors-restrictive-stay-at-home-order">said</a> the governor. &#8220;We have a few tough days ahead of us, but those days where we can resume some normalcy, they are on the horizon if we keep doing what we need to do to get past this moment.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-nj-governor-confronted-on-violating-bill-of-rights-by-banning-religious-services-gives-viral-response">WATCH: NJ Governor Confronted On Violating Bill Of Rights By Banning Religious Services, Gives Viral Response</a>

Whitmer Protest

Michigan Gov. Whitmer Hit With Multiple Lawsuits Over Coronavirus Order

Gretchen Whitmer

Michigan

Second Amendment

On Wednesday evening, Fox News host Tucker Carlson confronted New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy about his executive order banning religious services in the state during the coronavirus crisis, an order that resulted in 15 men being arrested for congregating at a synagogue earlier this month. The Democratic governor responded by defending his severe order and openly admitting that he &#8220;wasn&#8217;t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.&#8221;
&#8216;The Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans&#8217; rights — enshrines their right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together to assemble peacefully,&#8221; Carlson reminded Gov. Murphy on his show Wednesday, as reported by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-phil-murphy-bill-of-rights">Fox News</a>.
The First Amendment specifies that &#8220;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.&#8221;
&#8220;By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order?&#8221; Carlson asked Murphy. &#8220;How do you have the power to do that?&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s above my pay grade, Tucker,&#8221; said the governor. &#8220;I wasn&#8217;t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this &#8230; we looked at all the data and the science and it says people have to stay away from each other. That is the best thing we can do to break the back of the curve of this virus, that leads to lower hospitalization and ultimately fatalities.&#8221;
Clearly unsatisfied with Murphy&#8217;s response, Carlson pressed again. &#8220;Since you are an elected official, a leader in the government, an executive, how do you have the authority to order something that so clearly contravenes the Bill of Rights of the United States – the U.S. Constitution – where do you get the authority to do that?&#8221; he asked.
&#8220;We know we need to stay away from each other, number one,&#8221; Murphy replied. &#8220;Number two, we do have broad authority within the state. And number three, we would never do that without coordinating, discussing, and hashing it out with the variety of the leaders of the faiths of New Jersey.&#8221; The governor went on to claim that he spoke with multiple religious leaders, including Newark Archbishop Joseph Cardinal Tobin.
<div class="embed-media twitter">
<div class="tweet-embed">
Clip of the interview below (via The Daily Caller):
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Tucker Carlson asks New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy where he got the authority to nullify the Bill of rights when he banned religious services in his state:
 &quot;I wasn&#39;t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this&#8230; The science says people have to stay away from each other.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/DPQ5d2DFl2">pic.twitter.com/DPQ5d2DFl2</a>
&mdash; Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1250582176611123205?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Like many states, New Jersey has <a href="https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/approved/eo_archive.html">mandated</a> closure of businesses, organizations, and activities deemed &#8220;non-essential.&#8221; As a result, the national economy has begun to collapse, with now <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/economy-is-falling-off-a-cliff-another-5-2-million-americans-filed-jobless-claims-last-week-totaling-22-million-in-last-month">22 million</a> Americans filing for unemployment over a span of just four weeks, an unprecedented development.
In response, a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lockdown-backlash-builds-protests-organized-in-multiple-states">backlash</a> has begun to grow in many states, particularly those where officials have been deemed to have &#8220;overreached&#8221; their authority and violated constitutionally protected rights.
In Michigan, where the backlash is particularly strong over Democratic. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer&#8217;s severe executive order shutting down most of the economy and making access to some goods difficult for residents, four sheriffs have declared that they will not enforce some of the restrictions, citing their duty to serve as the &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sheriffs-say-no-to-democrat-governors-draconian-lockdown-orders-we-will-protect-civil-liberties">last line of defense in protecting your civil liberties</a>.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-police-arrest-reopen-america-protester-say-constitutionally-protected-rights-non-essential">WATCH: Police Arrest ‘Reopen’ Protester; Say Constitutionally Protected Rights ‘Non-Essential’</a>

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy

WATCH: NJ Governor Confronted On Violating Bill Of Rights By Banning Religious Services, Gives Viral Response

Fox News

New Jersey

Phil Murphy

Tucker Carlson

On Tuesday, police in North Carolina&#8217;s capital city arrested at least one protester who had joined a peaceful protest outside the state&#8217;s General Assembly building to call on the governor to &#8220;reopen&#8221; the state. In explanation of why the protest was broken up and at least one demonstrator arrested, the Raleigh Police Department <a href="https://twitter.com/raleighpolice/status/1250111779574894594?s=20">explained</a> on Twitter that &#8220;protesting is a non-essential activity.&#8221;
Nearly every state in the country is now under stay-at-home orders, which bar activities state governors deem to be &#8220;non-essential.&#8221; In the stunning sequence of events on Tuesday in Raleigh, North Carolina residents were told that exercising the First Amendment-protected rights &#8220;peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress &#8221; are among the activities deemed &#8220;non-essential&#8221; by state authorities.
On March 27, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) issued an <a href="https://files.nc.gov/governor/documents/files/EO121-Stay-at-Home-Order-3.pdf">executive order</a> detailing his &#8220;stay-at-home&#8221; mandate, including the barring of gatherings of 10 or more people in enclosed spaces and the forced closure of businesses and organizations deemed &#8220;non-essential.&#8221; Amid devastating unemployment numbers, which have now reached 17 million nationwide, and with North Carolina not particularly hard-hit by the pandemic, some North Carolina residents have begun to push back on the state-wide mandate.
On Tuesday, a group of around 75 to 100 &#8220;Reopen NC&#8221; demonstrators gathered outside the state&#8217;s General Assembly building to call on Cooper to ease the restrictions so more people can begin to get back to work. As noted by <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/14/north-carolina-reopen-protests-coronavirus/">The Daily Caller</a>, Reopen NC&#8217;s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1071729406534210/">Facebook page</a> has now amassed nearly 30,000 members.
The Raleigh Police Department issued a series of tweets on Tuesday detailing their response to the protests. &#8220;We are aware of the [Reopen NC] protest that is occurring in Downtown Raleigh on Wilmington and Jones Street and are monitoring the situation,&#8221; the department tweeted. &#8220;The protestors are in violation of the Governor’s Executive Order and have been asked to leave,&#8221; Raleigh Police added in another tweet. &#8220;We are reopening Wilmington and Jones Street. The protest has been cleared. There was one arrest made.&#8221;
In response to someone asking &#8220;what part of the governor&#8217;s order was violated&#8221; in this instance, Raleigh Police responded: &#8220;Protesting is a non-essential activity.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We are reopening Wilmington and Jones Street. The protest has been cleared. There was one arrest made. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Raleigh?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Raleigh</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ReopenNC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ReopenNC</a> <a href="https://t.co/DnQbFZusJy">pic.twitter.com/DnQbFZusJy</a>
&mdash; Raleigh Police (@raleighpolice) <a href="https://twitter.com/raleighpolice/status/1250104269300215818?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Protesting is a non-essential activity.
&mdash; Raleigh Police (@raleighpolice) <a href="https://twitter.com/raleighpolice/status/1250111779574894594?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
ABC 11&#8217;s Jonah Kaplan reported from the scene, posting a series of tweets, along with photos and video (posts below).
&#8220;Protestors set up camp outside [NC General Assembly building], demand [Gov. Cooper], [NCDHHS Sec. Mandy Cohen] &amp; [North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services] lift [stay-at-home] orders and [reopen North Carolina],&#8221; wrote Kaplan. &#8220;There’s palpable anger [and] frustration amidst the crowd, which includes struggling small business owners.&#8221;
 &#8220;The group [&#8216;ReopenNC&#8217;], which organized the protest, had originally called on other small business owners to stay in cars [and] honk horns. Demonstration has now morphed into campaign-style rally,&#8221; he added. &#8220;As [Raleigh Police and Capitol Police] get involved, some shout of &#8216;tyranny,&#8217; &#8216;Gestapo&#8217; &amp; &#8216;Comrade [Cooper].&#8217; Despite increase in volume, protest still peaceful. There are several families and school aged children here as well. My educated guess is about 75-100 people now, with about half in their cars. Every 15 minutes or do demonstrators let loose with their horns.&#8221;
Raleigh Police Department &#8220;appears to be closing streets around [the assembly building],&#8221; Kaplan wrote in updates. &#8220;Officers now warning the demonstration violates [Gov. Cooper&#8217;s] [stay-at-home] order &amp; public health orders. Two warnings now that arrests will soon begin. Third &amp; final [Raleigh Police] warning appears to working as much of the crowd disperses. [Wake County Sheriff&#8217;s Office] prison transports also arriving now, as officers also start walking through the parking lot and going to car to car.&#8221;
In a post that includes video of the incident, Kaplan reported on the protester who was arrested for protesting the government. &#8220;At least one person now under arrest by [Raleigh Police] for refusing to leave [Reopen NC] demonstration outside the [NC General Assembly building]. At its height, there were probably 100+ people at the tailgate-style rally.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
UPDATE: <a href="https://twitter.com/raleighpolice?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@raleighpolice</a> appears to be closing streets around <a href="https://twitter.com/NCLeg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NCLeg</a>. Officers now warning the demonstration violates <a href="https://twitter.com/NC_Governor?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NC_Governor</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StayAtHome?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StayAtHome</a> order &amp; public health orders. Two warnings now that arrests will soon begin. <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC11_WTVD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ABC11_WTVD</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ABCPolitics</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ABC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/coronavirusNC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#coronavirusNC</a> <a href="https://t.co/RoAUUHR3lq">pic.twitter.com/RoAUUHR3lq</a>
&mdash; Jonah Kaplan (@KaplanABC11) <a href="https://twitter.com/KaplanABC11/status/1250098174217400321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NEW: At least one person now under arrest by <a href="https://twitter.com/raleighpolice?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@raleighpolice</a> for refusing to leave <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ReopenNC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ReopenNC</a> demonstration outside <a href="https://twitter.com/NCLeg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ncleg</a>. At its height, there were probably 100+ people at the tailgate-style rally. <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC11_WTVD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ABC11_WTVD</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ABC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ABCPolitics</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/coronavirusNC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#coronavirusNC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StayAtHome?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StayAtHome</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/abc11?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#abc11</a> <a href="https://t.co/so9ZIzzqpY">pic.twitter.com/so9ZIzzqpY</a>
&mdash; Jonah Kaplan (@KaplanABC11) <a href="https://twitter.com/KaplanABC11/status/1250101103175380992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-police-in-north-carolina-arrest-peaceful-protestors-declare-protesting-a-non-essential-activity">WALSH: Police In North Carolina Arrest Peaceful Protestors, Declare Protesting A ‘Non-Essential Activity’ </a>
<article class="css-1dbjc4n r-1u4rsef r-1loqt21 r-16y2uox r-1wbh5a2 r-1udh08x r-1j3t67a r-o7ynqc r-6416eg" tabindex="0" role="article" aria-haspopup="false" data-focusable="true" aria-labelledby="tweet-promoted-label conversation-level-label tweet-social-context tweet-user-name tweet-user-screen-name tweet-timestamp tweet-reply-context tweet-text tweet-rich-content-label tweet-action-buttons">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-18u37iz r-thb0q2" data-testid="tweet">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1iusvr4 r-16y2uox r-1777fci r-5f2r5o r-1mi0q7o">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n">
<div dir="auto" lang="en"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</article>

Reopen NC Protesters

WATCH: Police Arrest ‘Reopen’ Protester; Say Constitutionally Protected Rights ‘Non-Essential’

Yesterday, former president Barack Obama sent out a tweet scolding President Trump and tying the coronavirus pandemic to climate change.
&#8220;We&#8217;ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic,” Obama wrote. “We can&#8217;t afford any more consequences of climate denial. All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall.”
Along with this tweet was a link to an LA Times article about the Trump Administration curtailing some of the Obama Administration’s vehicle emissions standards. Obama’s point is that, in his opinion, a failure to take governmental action against climate change will have the same sort of effect as Trump’s initial failure, in his opinion, to take governmental action against the coronavirus.
Obama here is hammering on a now familiar theme. Many media outlets have attempted to link the one thing with the other. A recent article in Time, titled “5 Lessons From Coronavirus That Will Help Us Tackle Climate Change,” argues that one crucial lesson is that “global challenges require systemic changes – changes that can only be activated by government or companies.”
The article continues: “But they also require individual behavioral changes. We need both. We have seen over the past few weeks that governments can take radical action and we can change our behavior quite quickly.”
Al Jazeera has connected the two issues more directly. “The coronavirus outbreak is part of the climate change crisis,” an op-ed on the news outlet’s website declared this week. We’re told that “these sweeping and unprecedented measures taken by the government and international institutions” to curb the virus should cause us to “wonder about another global emergency that needs urgent action – climate change.”
“In fact, one may argue that the pandemic is part of climate change,” it goes on. “And therefore, our response to it should not be limited to containing the spread of the virus. What we thought was ‘normal’ before the pandemic was already a crisis and so returning to it cannot be an option.”
I could marshal other examples, but hopefully the point is clear. The Left is arguing that the governmental response to the coronavirus should serve as a model for the government’s response to climate change. Phrases like “systemic changes” and “sweeping and unprecedented measures” are being used, in a positive sense, to suggest a path forward in our mortal struggle against the weather. Those of us who, historically, have not been so keen on the government doing things that are “sweeping” and “systemic” should take note and be wary.
It seems at this point very likely that the next Democratic president will use the precedents being set right now to justify dramatic infringements on our liberties for the sake of fighting the climate change bogeyman, or any number of other real or imagined threats. The government projected that millions would die from the coronavirus and used that as a justification for effectively suspending the Bill of Rights, locking millions of Americans in their homes, forcibly closing millions of businesses, relegating entire sectors of the workforce to the unemployment line, arresting pastors, quarantining whole cities, and banning people from walking outside unless they do so for an approved reason. Many Americans have cooperated approvingly with these measures, despite the fact that they are destroying our economy and bringing us closer and closer to a crash and eventual depression unlike anything we’ve yet seen. It does not take a fortune teller to detect where this might go next.
If the government’s “projections” and “models” are reason enough to take this sort of action, then what happens when the government, under a Democratic president, projects the end of all life on Earth unless extraordinary things are done to avoid armageddon? On what basis can those of us who endorse the current shutdown of American society “to save millions of lives” really object when a similarly drastic program is put in place &#8220;to save billions of lives&#8221;? If the government can issue declarations that shutter, in many cases permanently, tens of millions of small businesses, why can’t it issue declarations dismantling industries that, it will say, contribute to climate change and thus the apocalypse? 
Those of us who support these shut downs will be in quite a bind. We will not be able to argue that the government in principle should not, or does not have the power to, toss free enterprise into the wood chipper along with the Bill of Rights, and seize dictatorial control of our civilization. We will have already ceded such power to it. Instead, all we will be able to do is debate whether it is actually true that climate change poses that kind of threat. But the government will have the “consensus of the scientific community” on its side. And that will settle that, for all intents and purposes.
There are other possibilities, just as plausible, or nearly so. Imagine a future Democratic regime that declares gun violence a national emergency and public health crisis, and summarily orders the confiscation of all “assault weapons” or hand guns. Those of us who obediently support the effective suspension of the First Amendment, even up to the arrest of pastors who hold worship services, will have little ground to stand on when we protest the effective suspension of the Second Amendment. If the one is negotiable and mutable, why not the other?
When I objected yesterday to the arrest of pastors, many self-professed conservative Christians reprimanded me, insisting that I am putting lives at risk by questioning the State&#8217;s authority and motivations in this matter. I was also told, repeatedly, that churches &#8220;don&#8217;t need to meet&#8221; because they can always stream the service online. True, they don&#8217;t need to. You also don&#8217;t &#8220;need&#8221; that &#8220;assault rifle&#8221; in your house. A handgun or shotgun is fine for home defense. You don&#8217;t need it. Stop being difficult. Is your silly gun more important than human life?
You will respond that it isn&#8217;t about &#8220;need,&#8221; and no matter how many mass shootings are carried out with the style of weapon you own, you still won&#8217;t give it up. You would be right to respond that way. But the people who are willing to forfeit the First Amendment based on &#8220;need&#8221; will have a hard time explaining why they shouldn&#8217;t do the same with the Second. All they will be able to do is argue that gun violence is not actually a health crisis or an emergency, or that they do need their gun for whatever reason. Once again, though, the consensus of smart and powerful people will win the day. We will have nowhere else to go, no other argument to turn to. The most powerful argument – that the government in principle should not have the power to take these actions, even if there really is a crisis – will no longer be available. We will have forfeited it. We are forfeiting it, right now, as we speak.
Or what if a future New York Governor Ocasio-Cortez, enjoying the support of a Democrat-run federal government, decides that the refusal of certain churches in her state to perform gay weddings is its own emergency because of the mental and emotional damage it does to the gay couples who suffer from it? Can she close those places of worship until they pledge to end their bigoted practices?
If these possibilities seem wholly implausible to you, I would suggest that you haven’t been paying very close attention to the rhetoric and language these people use when making their case. They have been setting the stage for this kind of power grab for many years now. But the coronavirus response, and its passive acceptance by many Americans, has made what was once only likely seem now inevitable.

Dem Donkey

WALSH: We Are Setting A Dangerous Precedent That Future Democrat Administrations Will Almost Certainly Exploit

COVID-19

Democratic Party

Democrats

<div class="cue-group style-scope ytd-transcript-body-renderer">
<div class="cues style-scope ytd-transcript-body-renderer">
<div role="button">
During this week&#8217;s episode of &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QmB_zZELw&amp;t=1849s">The Sunday Special</a>&#8221; with Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, prominent attorney and former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz revealed his plan to likely sue CNN for allegedly maliciously misrepresenting the speech he gave on the Senate floor concerning the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
According to Dershowitz, &#8220;idiots&#8221; on the network intentionally &#8220;lied&#8221; about him in an effort to ding the attorney&#8217;s credibility, (since he was on the side of Trump), suggesting the clip CNN ran of him was &#8220;doctored,&#8221; and not merely &#8220;taken out of context.”
&#8220;The case that you made in front of the Senate is not the case that CNN said you made in front of the Senate,&#8221; Shapiro told Dershowitz. &#8220;The case that CNN said you made in front of the Senate was effectively that if a politician of any sort does something in pursuit of their own re-election, then this is not impeachable activity.”
Shapiro argued that the clip was clearly &#8220;taken out of context,&#8221; but Dershowitz used stronger language.
&#8220;It was doctored,&#8221; he accused. &#8220;It was as if I said the following, let me tell you now what I don&#8217;t believe. I don&#8217;t believe a president seeking re-election can do anything, and CNN ran: A president seeking re-election can do anything.”
&#8220;That&#8217;s not protected by the First Amendment, and it shouldn&#8217;t be protected,&#8221; the attorney later emphasized, regarding CNN&#8217;s alleged actions against him.
&#8220;What CNN did is they took all of that out and they made it sound like I was saying [something else]. And then you had these idiots on CNN, people like Paul Begala, who said basically what I said was a president can do anything illegal,&#8221; Dershowitz continued, adding that CNN contributor Joe Lockhart was &#8220;another liar&#8221; who misrepresented him.
The attorney said he has information to back his suspicions that CNN misrepresented him intentionally, rather than ignorantly misquoting him.
&#8220;I suspect that what happened is, and it&#8217;s more than a suspicion, it&#8217;s based on information that I have, is that [Jeff] Zucker, the head of CNN, made a willful deliberate decision to have me say something that sounded idiotic in order to hurt my credibility on the hour and ten [minute] speech that I made in front of the Senate,” Dershowitz stated. “And they deliberately omitted what I had said about criminal conduct to make it sound like I was saying a president can do anything, and then everybody followed suit, everybody on CNN.”
With regard to the First Amendment, Dershowitz said you would not be &#8220;talking about actually changing the standard.”
&#8220;But we&#8217;d have to make new law, saying that, basically, if you use the words that were actually spoken, but you purposely, willfully, and with malice leave out words just before and just after that totally, completely changed the meaning, that&#8217;s not protected by the First Amendment,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And I think that&#8217;s right.”
&#8220;I think we start small by looking at people who willfully and deliberately abuse the First Amendment for partisan or personal or financial benefit – that&#8217;s where you begin, and I think we can do that, okay,&#8221; added Dershowitz.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I’m thinking of suing cnn for doctoring a video of me. <a href="https://t.co/PDDtYb2dgh">https://t.co/PDDtYb2dgh</a>
&mdash; Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1237464656253308933?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
WATCH:
<iframe title="Alan Dershowitz | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 85" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j4QmB_zZELw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Alan Dershowitz On &#8220;The Sunday Special&#8221;

Alan Dershowitz: ‘Idiots’ On CNN ‘Lied’ About My Trump Comments And I’ll Likely Sue Them; Hints At New 1A Media Standard

Alan Dershowitz

After taking a surprising lead in the faith-focused Iowa caucuses, presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg is now being discussed as a Democratic Party presidential frontrunner. But despite being a self-proclaimed Christian, Buttigieg’s rhetoric and policies undermine rather than support religious liberty.
Buttigieg has unabashedly embraced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-house-democrats-equality-act-both-josh-hammer">Equality Act legislation</a> that would strike a massive blow to our nation’s religious institutions. Specifically, the Equality Act would create a federally protected status for gender identity, defined as the “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
Any faith-based establishment — including churches, schools, and hospitals — with theological beliefs in conflict with this definition would likely face expensive legal battles, lawsuits, and public scrutiny. Case in point: A <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-wa-and-peacehealth-agree-settle-lawsuit-involving-transgender-healthcare" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-wa-and-peacehealth-agree-settle-lawsuit-involving-transgender-healthcare&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGAth8sOEO3vpXX7ZIu4u4Xmi5vXA">Catholic hospital</a> was sued last year by the ACLU because it would not perform a risky sex-change surgery on a 16-year-old girl.
Unfortunately, the Equality Act would coerce health care and mental health professionals into providing dangerous gender-transition treatments for young children and adolescents, counter to their medical advice — and for many, against their religious beliefs.
Just as alarming, Buttigieg has imposed litmus tests based on what he deems theologically acceptable. We witnessed this first-hand when the former South Bend, Indiana mayor attacked Second Lady Karen Pence for teaching at a private school that adheres to her Judeo-Christian belief about marriage. In response, Buttigieg ridiculed the Pences and likened their religious views to that of “<a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1086297780514115585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1086297780514115585&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2019%2F11%2F11%2Fwhy-pete-buttigieg-is-the-most-destructive-candidate-for-christianity%2F" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1086297780514115585?ref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Etfw%257Ctwcamp%255Etweetembed%257Ctwterm%255E1086297780514115585%26ref_url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fthefederalist.com%252F2019%252F11%252F11%252Fwhy-pete-buttigieg-is-the-most-destructive-candidate-for-christianity%252F&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGwUBGJvLf5CXMJu3hcs6dg6abQ5g">Pharisees</a>.”
As a private institution, like thousands of such private schools that have long existed in our country, the school where Mrs. Pence teaches has the right to govern its school according to its own religious beliefs. Islamic schools, Buddhist schools, and Jewish schools are also free to do so under the United States Constitution.
As an individual running for our nation’s highest office, Pete Buttigieg is signaling how a Buttigieg administration would handle religious liberty. And his signals should frighten many.
When explicitly asked about religious freedom, Buttigieg <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/10/buttigieg_religious_freedom_makes_god_smaller_when_used_used_as_an_excuse_to_harm_other_people.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/10/buttigieg_religious_freedom_makes_god_smaller_when_used_used_as_an_excuse_to_harm_other_people.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1581100427416000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGJ6Rk7gZclZ3HMbhwVWW9qPgHRiw">claimed</a>, “the right to religious freedom ends where religion is being used as an excuse to harm other people.” He gave no further explanation of his definition of “harm,” placing the ironclad religious protections that our nation has valued for generations at considerable risk under his vague interpretation.
Our founding charter, the Constitution, defends and supports the belief that America was established on the freedom of ALL religions. Furthermore, it is not just freedom afforded to spiritual individuals to put their trust in religious faith or belief. Rather, it is an essential aspect of a well-ordered society to respect that human beings are made in the image of a higher power and should be able to order their lives around their personal religious beliefs.
Mayor Pete has ignored that right, choosing instead to weaponize his beliefs as a litmus test against the beliefs of others. If an individual or entity gets in his way, he will marginalize them — no questions asked.
This complete disregard for our nation’s freedom isn’t how freedom actually works. Our rights aren’t good enough when a leader deems them acceptable to their standards; they stand on their own because the Constitution says so.
&nbsp;
Ms. Vought is executive director of the <a href="https://www.senateconservatives.com">Senate Conservatives Fund</a>. Her husband, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/author/russ-vought">Russ</a>, is acting director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg Begins Bus Tour Across NH Ahead Of Primary

VOUGHT: Pete Buttigieg Is No Friend Of Religious Liberty

2020 Election

ACLU

Lawsuit

Leftism

LGBT

Nancy Pelosi

Pete Buttigieg

On Friday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat down with Silicon Slopes Executive Director Clint Betts for an interview at the 2020 Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah.
The interview was wide-ranging, but at the very beginning, Betts asked Zuckerberg to elaborate on his recent statement that it’s more important to be understood rather than liked.
Zuckerberg replied, first talking about how in Facebook’s nascent stages as a company, he didn’t quite know how to properly communicate, and that despite the poor and vague communication, the company was winning because of the product.
He continued, comparing Facebook’s prior approach to what they’re beginning to do now:
<blockquote>Broadly speaking, for a long time, the basic approach was, “Okay, let&#8217;s try to not, like, do anything that&#8217;s gonna be too offensive &#8230; and we&#8217;ll kind of explain what we&#8217;re doing in broad strokes and talk about the mission of what we&#8217;re doing,” which is something that I really believe in – helping to build community and bring people closer together. But I think we just shied away for a long time talking about &#8230; some of the principles that we believe in that are increasingly controversial in the world, and I just think that we, for one, don&#8217;t have that luxury anymore.</blockquote>
Zuckerberg added that the company’s previous mode of communication allowed people to feel “positive &#8230; but fairly shallow” about Facebook because the company wasn’t “standing for things that people care about.”
He went on to talk directly about freedom of expression and the troubling push for censorship:
<blockquote>In Georgetown last year, I gave this speech around our principles, around free expression, and, you know, that&#8217;s just one of the areas that I really feel like is under attack right now &#8230; increasingly, you know, we&#8217;re getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable. I think that it kind of feels like the list of things that you&#8217;re not allowed to say socially keeps on growing, and I&#8217;m not really okay with that.</blockquote>
Zuckerberg clarified that he isn&#8217;t talking about the necessary removal of things like “terrorism, child exploitation, incitement to violence,” etc, that Facebook has tens of thousands of staff working on around the clock.
<blockquote>At some point I just felt like, alright, we’ve got to stand up and say, “No, we&#8217;re gonna stand for free expression, and yeah, we&#8217;re gonna take down the content that&#8217;s really harmful, but the line needs to be held at some point,” and I think that &#8230; it&#8217;s unfortunate that this is such a controversial thing.</blockquote>
At this, the audience cheered.
The CEO noted that back in 2004, freedom of expression “wasn’t a thing that people were pushing back on that much,” and that he believes “a lot of people” agree with his stand for freedom of expression.
He went on to talk about his thoughts on privacy as well, and how encryption is an important part of that. Some people claim that “tools for privacy are only important to help bad guys,” Zuckerberg stated. “I don&#8217;t believe that.”
<blockquote>I guess &#8230; this is the new approach, and I think it&#8217;s gonna piss off a lot of people, too, but, you know, frankly the old approach was pissing off a lot of people, too, so let&#8217;s try something different.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d4JUbvzM3sQ?start=172" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Mark Zuckerberg.

WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg Stands For ‘Free Expression’ Even As It’s ‘Under Attack’

Censorship

Mark Zuckerberg

Each year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) releases a list of the worst schools in the country for free speech. These could be schools that have restrictive free speech codes or schools that have made headlines for their violations of rights.
“Some — we’re looking at you Harvard, DePaul, and Syracuse — are regulars and have appeared four or five times. Others have slunk away in embarrassment after being listed. But all have one thing in common: They had the chance to do the right thing when it came to free speech, but chose otherwise,” FIRE wrote in a <a href="https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2020/">post</a> about the list.
FIRE doesn’t list the schools in order of bad to worst. Instead, the schools are listed alphabetically. Below are the 10 worst for 2020:
Babson College (Massachusetts)
Professor Asheen Phansey made a joke on his private Facebook page and was fired. His joke may or may not be funny to you, but it was an obvious joke and not an actual threat. Still, the school conducted a “thorough investigation” – which last about one day – and fired Phansey. Here’s his joke, which was made after President Donald Trump threatened to bomb 52 Iranian sites, including potentially some cultural sites:
In retaliation, Ayatollah Khomeni should tweet a list of 52 sites of beloved American cultural heritage that he would bomb. Um… Mall of America? …Kardashian residence?
Jones College (Mississippi)
Michael Brown, a former student of Jones College, was trying to raise interest in Young Americans for Liberty. His former college twice told him to stop exercising his free speech rights, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-stands-up-for-campus-free-speech-in-students-federal-lawsuit">so he sued</a>. The lawsuit gained so much attention even the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the case.
Harvard University (Massachusetts)
Harvard has been cracking down on single-gender clubs and removed law professor and Ronald Sullivan as faculty dean of Winthrop House because he did his job as a defense attorney and agreed to take Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as a client. Weinstein is charged with rape and sexual assault.
Harvard students were upset that a criminal defense attorney was defend someone charged with a crime, and the university obliged.
University of Scranton (Pennsylvania)
Students attempting to register a chapter of the conservative group Turning Point USA were denied by the student government simply for being a right-leaning group. The school stood by the student government’s decision instead of standing up for the students’ First Amendment rights.
Middlebury College (Vermont)
Middlebury was the scene of one of the most <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/middlebury-announces-disciplinary-actions-charles-murray-student-riot/">high-profile instances</a> of student aggression back in 2017. Last year, the school decided it hadn’t proved itself hostile enough to free speech by canceling a lecture by Polish scholar and politician Ryszard Legutko that was organized by faculty, not students.
Long Island University Post (New York)
The school investigated student Jake Gutowitz for possessing “forbidden flyers.”
“These <a href="https://www.thefire.org/example-common-sense-flyer/">flyers</a>, which had been appearing on campus throughout the school year, were labeled ‘Common Sense’ à la Thomas Paine and contained parodies and poems criticizing LIU Post and its administrators, particularly President Kimberly Cline,” FIRE wrote.
Gutowitz denied any involvement in distributing the flyers and was told he would receive a letter resolving the investigation – but he never did, even after he graduated.
University of Connecticut
Irresponsible students playing that game where one person shouts a “taboo” word and the other tries to out-do them were recorded playing the game in a parking lot. Eventually, the students shouted the n-word and campus police were sent to find them. An investigation ensued and they were charged under a century-old statute. They also face disciplinary charges at the university.
Syracuse University (New York)
Syracuse denied recognition to students trying to start a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom because it was a conservative group. The school also suspended all fraternity activities for a semester because of an alleged racial incident at one fraternity that involved someone who wasn’t even a member of that fraternity.
Doane University (Nebraska)
“A faculty librarian displayed the university’s own historical photos — and got suspended,” FIRE reported.
The librarian selected photos that would spark a discussion about offensive Halloween and party costumes. Two of the university-owned photos she selected included students wearing blackface at a masquerade party in 1926. The librarian was suspended and later reinstated, but the school has not adequately responded to that issues of free speech.
Portland State University (Oregon)
Campus police canceled a socialist group’s meeting out of fear that a single “Patriot Prayer” leader might attend. This same campus police organization then stood by while a protester with a cowbell disrupted a College Republican meeting.

Free speech

SILENCED: America’s 10 WORST Colleges For Free Speech

Education

Menu