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.
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.
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.
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.
Regulation of online speech is marching forward from both the left and the right, and it may only be a matter of time until free expression on the Internet becomes a thing of the past.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled last week that a Spokane fire captain met his burden of proving that his free speech rights were restricted in violation of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the burden now shifts to the employer to show that it would have taken the same action even if he had not engaged in the protected religious conduct.
In its third case on the issue of state-required speech this term, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a California case involving whether the state can compel pro-life pregnancy counseling centers to post notices about the existence of publicly-funded abortion and contraceptive services, and requires disclosures if the centers or personnel are unlicensed.
In a narrowly drafted opinion, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled that the government could not compel a Christian printer to promote messages that violated his religious beliefs.
We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, ‘Too late.’
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
