Hilbert, Wisconsin high school basketball player April Gehl was suspended six games by her school over a tweet against a new state association policy banning popular basketball and hockey chants,[…]
Tagged: First Amendment
Each week I write an energy-themed commentary. The topic on which I write is generally something that my readers—even those in the energy industry—don’t know about. I frequently get grateful responses for the information, education, and deadlines addressed.
Reverence and veneration of our national flag has long been profound in the United States, far more so than in other countries. Veneration of the Stars and Stripes has evolved beyond mere respect for it as a symbol of national identity, but as an almost religious emblem of American values and the American way of life.
The issues surrounding the right to bear arms are many and varied. Most often the debate centers around the lethality of modern firearms, especially “assault weapons” that can fire rapidly with large magazines. Yet one element of the debate frequently referenced obliquely in the mainstream media concerns the actual intent and function of the Second Amendment. Some progressive groups have been endeavoring to turn the originalist position against itself, so to speak. Their arguments are often baffling to those unprepared for them, but they are easily beaten with a little preparation.
The net neutrality movement is positioning to influence the FCC, Congress, and candidates in the mid-term election cycle, to support their version of net neutrality — i.e. FCC reclassification of broadband Internet service as a telephone common carrier service.
In its recent ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down yet another provision of federal campaign finance law as a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
This time it was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s limitation on the aggregate amount of contributions — presently $123,200 — that a donor may contribute to all candidates or party committees in one election cycle.
The framers of the Constitution established the First Amendment primarily to protect political speech, so the McCutcheon decision was a victory for free speech rights, as the framers intended.
Yesterday, a “Senior Organizer” for the “Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign” named Aquene Freechild commended the morally and fiscally bankrupt state of Illinois for becoming the 14th state[…]
The arguments made against Citizens United all boil down to a conviction that speech from some quarters is not worth hearing, and that the public cannot be trusted with the vote if they are influenced by certain disfavored speakers.
President Barack Obama’s contraception mandate has caused consternation among religious entities and employers. But most Americans probably aren’t aware this mandate extends all the way into the home, fundamentally altering[…]
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012, from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., the University of Chicago’s Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, Martha Nussbaum – appointed in both the Law[…]
One would be hard-pressed to find a better example of Liberal Fascism than the move by liberal politicians to ban Chick-fil-A from their jurisdictions because of the owner’s opinion on gay[…]
The Supreme Court’s June 27th decision to strike down a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors is a victory for both the video game industry[…]
The libertarian take on the Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday in the Westboro Baptist/military funerals case may be boiled down to the old nostrum that we may disagree with what the[…]