This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.
But as the government continues to pull the strings by asking private companies to curtail freedom of speech it increasingly becomes an actor in unconstitutionally curtailing freedom of speech.
Court to hear whether government can force dissenting artists to speak contrary to their faith.
How the Supreme Court abandoned the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” trope and what it means in the Age of the Pandemic
Citing health and safety concerns, Minnesota Senator (and erstwhile presidential candidate) Amy Klobuchar introduced a bill on Thursday, July 22, 2021, dubbed “The Health Misinformation Act of 2021” that would hold tech companies responsible for allowing misinformation about vaccines and other health issues to spread online. In other words, if you say something about COVID-19 or vaccines or anything else that could be seen as “incorrect,” big tech would now have an obligation to censor you.
With outdoor temperatures expected to pass the 100-degree mark, two Los Angeles area judges have given local churches some comforting news.
A California Court of Appeals has ruled that a religious hospital can be liable for discrimination if it refuses to provide medical services for religious reasons without immediately providing a referral to a hospital that will accommodate the patient. Â
On September 16, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a Phoenix city ordinance cannot require a business to create same-sex wedding invitations in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Â
It is debatable whether a claim by a public school football coach that he is compelled by religious belief to pray at the 50-yard line following each game is a good vehicle for addressing either free exercise or workplace religious accommodation. However, it does appear that the four justices who signed onto Alito’s response have concerns about the chilling effect of Hardison and Smith on the ability to even raise Title VII religious accommodation and Free Exercise Clause claims. With Patterson v. Walgreen Co., the Supreme Court has the opportunity to revisit religious accommodation claims under Title VII.
When one person’s opinions can reach the world in a matter of seconds on the Internet, the ability to speak freely is undergoing tremendous growing pains. These decisions show the Court still recognizes the rights to free speech and belief. The First Amendment remains alive and well for the time being.