Latest news with #FreeSpeechClause
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No right to information at public libraries, 5th Circuit rules
May 24 (UPI) -- A Texas public library did not violate patrons' right to free speech by removing books due to their content, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled on Friday. The entire appellate court, in a 10-7 decision, overturned federal district court and appellate court rulings finding the Llano County (Texas) Library System erred in removing 17 books due to their content. The courts initially ruled that library officials violated plaintiffs' right to receive information under the Constitution's Free Speech Clause by removing the books and ordered that they be returned to the library's shelves. The plaintiffs are seven library patrons who in 2022 filed a lawsuit challenging the removal of 17 books due to their "content on race, gender and sexuality as well as some children's books that contained nudity," the Austin American-Statesman reported. A federal district court and a three-judge appellate court panel each ruled against the library. The Fifth Circuit appellate court's en banc panel on Friday reversed the prior court decisions and dismissed the free speech claims against the Lloyd County Library System for two reasons. No right to receive information "Plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books," Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in the majority decision. "Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech," Duncan continued. "Plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books," he said. "The First Amendment acknowledges no such right." Instead, a patron could order a book online, buy it from a bookstore or borrow it from a friend, Duncan wrote. "All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collection," he said. Such decisions are very subjective, and it's impossible to find widespread agreement on a standard to determine which books should or should not be made available, the majority ruling says. "May a library remove a book because it dislikes its ideas? Because it finds the book vulgar? Sexist? Inaccurate? Outdated? Poorly written?" Duncan wrote. "Heaven knows." The plaintiffs "took the baffling view that libraries cannot even remove books that espouse racism," Duncan added. Public library collections are 'government speech' The majority decision also ruled that the library's collection decisions are government speech and not subject to First Amendment-based free speech challenges. Duncan said many precedents affirm that "curating and presenting a collection of third-party speech" is an "expressive activity." Examples include editors choosing which stories to publish, television stations choosing which programs to air and museum officials deciding what to feature in exhibits. "In the same way, a library expresses itself by deciding how to shape its collection," Duncan wrote. He cited another court's ruling that said governments speak through public libraries by selecting which books to make available and which ones to exclude. "From the moment they emerged in the 19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature," Duncan said. "Libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes," he said. "Their collection decisions are, therefore, government speech." He called arguments made in the case "over-caffeinated" and said plaintiffs warned of "book bans," "pyres of burned books," and "totalitarian regimes." "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people," one brief filed by plaintiffs claimed, according to Duncan. "Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books," he said. Won't 'join the book burners' Judge Stephen Higginson was joined by six others in a lengthy dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court in prior rulings affirmed the right to receive information and the right to be "free from officially prescribed orthodoxy," Higginson said. "Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas," Higginson wrote. "But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County Public Library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas," he said. The majority "forsakes core First Amendment principles and controlling Supreme Court law," he wrote. "Because I would not have our court 'join the book burners,'" Higginson said, "I dissent."
UPI
25-05-2025
- Politics
- UPI
No right to information at public libraries, 5th Circuit rules
A Texas county public library did not violate patrons' free speech rights by removing 17 titles from its shelves, an en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in a 10-7 decision on Friday. Photo by Activedia/Pixabay May 24 (UPI) -- A Texas public library did not violate patrons' right to free speech by removing books due to their content, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled on Friday. The entire appellate court, in a 10-7 decision, overturned federal district court and appellate court rulings finding the Llano County (Texas) Library System erred in removing 17 books due to their content. The courts initially ruled that library officials violated plaintiffs' right to receive information under the Constitution's Free Speech Clause by removing the books and ordered that they be returned to the library's shelves. The plaintiffs are seven library patrons who in 2022 filed a lawsuit challenging the removal of 17 books due to their "content on race, gender and sexuality as well as some children's books that contained nudity," the Austin American-Statesman reported. A federal district court and a three-judge appellate court panel each ruled against the library. The Fifth Circuit appellate court's en banc panel on Friday reversed the prior court decisions and dismissed the free speech claims against the Lloyd County Library System for two reasons. No right to receive information "Plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books," Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in the majority decision. "Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech," Duncan continued. "Plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books," he said. "The First Amendment acknowledges no such right." Instead, a patron could order a book online, buy it from a bookstore or borrow it from a friend, Duncan wrote. "All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collection," he said. Such decisions are very subjective, and it's impossible to find widespread agreement on a standard to determine which books should or should not be made available, the majority ruling says. "May a library remove a book because it dislikes its ideas? Because it finds the book vulgar? Sexist? Inaccurate? Outdated? Poorly written?" Duncan wrote. "Heaven knows." The plaintiffs "took the baffling view that libraries cannot even remove books that espouse racism," Duncan added. Public library collections are 'government speech' The majority decision also ruled that the library's collection decisions are government speech and not subject to First Amendment-based free speech challenges. Duncan said many precedents affirm that "curating and presenting a collection of third-party speech" is an "expressive activity." Examples include editors choosing which stories to publish, television stations choosing which programs to air and museum officials deciding what to feature in exhibits. "In the same way, a library expresses itself by deciding how to shape its collection," Duncan wrote. He cited another court's ruling that said governments speak through public libraries by selecting which books to make available and which ones to exclude. "From the moment they emerged in the 19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature," Duncan said. "Libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes," he said. "Their collection decisions are, therefore, government speech." He called arguments made in the case "over-caffeinated" and said plaintiffs warned of "book bans," "pyres of burned books," and "totalitarian regimes." "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people," one brief filed by plaintiffs claimed, according to Duncan. "Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books," he said. Won't 'join the book burners' Judge Stephen Higginson was joined by six others in a lengthy dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court in prior rulings affirmed the right to receive information and the right to be "free from officially prescribed orthodoxy," Higginson said. "Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas," Higginson wrote. "But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County Public Library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas," he said. The majority "forsakes core First Amendment principles and controlling Supreme Court law," he wrote. "Because I would not have our court 'join the book burners,'" Higginson said, "I dissent."
Epoch Times
14-05-2025
- General
- Epoch Times
Southern California School District Ordered to Inform Parents Before Adding Gender Topics to Buddy Program
A federal court issued an The issue relates to 'an educational activity at odds with Plaintiffs' religious beliefs,' said the May 12 order issued by U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz. Plaintiffs in the case are fifth-grade male students, referred to as P.D. and S.E. in court documents, studying at La Costa Heights Elementary School in the Encinitas Union School District, and their parents. In May 2024, a teacher read a book titled 'My Shadow Is Pink' in the plaintiff children's class. The book is about a boy who likes to wear dresses and play with toys associated with girls. In the story, the boy's shadow was pink rather than blue since the child thought he did not 'fit in' with his family and peers. The boy gets into a conflict with his father over the issue. The father eventually accepts his son's pink shadow as reflecting the child's 'innermost self.' The teacher read the book in preparation for a buddy program where fifth-graders are paired with kindergartners. The two children, who are plaintiffs in the case, were each paired with a kindergartner. In the program, the children watched a read-along video of the book. Kindergarteners were then asked to 'pick a color that represents you,' with fifth-graders asked to draw their buddies' shadow on the ground using colored chalk. Related Stories 5/14/2025 5/12/2025 'Although the class did not involve an explicit discussion of gender identity, the fact that the book addressed this issue was not lost on the students,' the court said. 'S.E. described the book as 'about LGBTQ.' P.D. described it as 'about a boy who wanted to change his gender to be a girl.'' 'Because choosing one's own gender identity is contrary to Plaintiffs' religious beliefs, they were uncomfortable with the buddy class. Moreover, as mentors, P.D. and S.E. did not wish to affirm the book's message to their buddies.' Typically, the Costa Heights Elementary School's buddy program involved art or garden projects, and the school would list out books students would read in a newsletter sent to parents. But for this specific class, the school did not list 'My Shadow Is Pink' in the newsletter. When parents confronted the school regarding their failure to notify them on the book's inclusion, and why they couldn't opt their children out of the program, the school told them that they had 'no right to opt out because the buddy class was not part of a 'health unit,'' said the order. Plaintiffs filed the case in September 2024 against school district officials, board members, the school principal, and two teachers. 'Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that Defendants violated P.D.'s rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by compelling him to affirm a message he disagrees with, and which is contrary to his religious beliefs.' Meanwhile, the defendants argued that parents have no fundamental right to control the information disseminated by public schools to their children. The court disagreed with this argument, saying that 'First Amendment protections apply to students in the school environment.' 'The government may not compel a person to speak the government's preferred messages,' it said. Defendants argued P.D. was not compelled in any manner as evidenced by the fact that he did not complain about the issue to his teacher during the class. The court dismissed this argument as well, saying the child did not complain as he did not wish to 'get in trouble.' Judge Lorenz eventually granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, prohibiting the district from including gender identity topics in the buddy program. The Epoch Times reached out to the school district for comment. Public interest law firm First Liberty Institute, which was involved in filing the lawsuit, welcomed the court decision in a May 13 'No child should be forced to speak a message that violates his religious convictions,' said Nate Kellum, senior counsel at the institute. 'We are grateful for the court's decision and will continue to fight to ensure that elementary children are not forced to participate in lessons about gender identity that violate their faith.' In May last year, a A female teacher, who was in support of using the book, said the 'California inclusivity and nondiscrimination law mandates that public schools provide inclusive environments for all students … to accommodate diversity of all students. 'I am proud to be a teacher at a district with a fantastic school board that supports the vision of an equitable world, follows both federal and state laws, and supports the teachers to implement this vision.' At the meeting, Carlos Encinas, a parent involved in the lawsuit, criticized the school district's decision to keep parents in the dark about the book. 'As parents, we have the right to know what our children are being exposed to, especially when it involves sensitive topics like gender identity,' he said.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Harvard, do you hear yourself?
Earlier this month, the federal government withheld billions in funding from Harvard. Last week, the IRS considered whether the school should keep its tax-exempt status. Harvard's response? They've labeled these moves as somehow 'unlawful.' But they can't explain how, because they're wrong. First, as it relates to funding, let's be clear: No institution is simply entitled to billions of taxpayer dollars. The federal government has the absolute right to attach conditions to the programs it pays for, especially when it comes to compliance with applicable civil rights laws. Contrary to what Harvard's leadership may believe, this isn't a First Amendment issue because the government is not suppressing free speech—it is exercising its own. And the Supreme Court has been crystal clear about this. In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), for example, the court explained that 'when government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says.' In fact, the court has continually refused 'to hold that the government unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals, because the program in advancing those goals necessarily discourages alternative goals.' In short, there is no First Amendment issue here because the government is not telling Harvard what to do: Harvard is free to keep on discriminating to its own heart's content — just not on the government's dime. Second, the IRS has full authority to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, and it is not a close call. Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) ruled that the IRS could (and should) revoke a university's tax-exempt status because its racially discriminatory practices violated public policy. In fact, in some ways, this case is even easier, because not only is discriminatory antisemitism in this context against public policy, it is also actually unlawful under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The fight against antisemitism has never been about Jewish exceptionalism, but rather Jewish equality, and while some talking heads might laugh at the idea of taking anti-Jewish hate just as seriously as other forms of discrimination, thankfully, the government is not laughing. The real story here should not be that Harvard is losing some funding, or that it might forfeit its taxpayer-subsidized preferential treatment. The focus should be on how hard and how openly the University is willing to fight for its self-given 'right' to continue violating civil rights laws with impunity. Shame on them. Shame as well on those public figures who somehow find their voices only just in time to criticize those finally imposing accountability where it is so desperately needed. Where were they when Jewish students were being attacked on campus? Silent. But when the Trump administration started deporting anti-Israel protest organizers like Mahmoud Khalil, these same politicians rushed to whitewash his violent behavior and paint him as a misunderstood peacenik. If only they had fought so hard to protect the rights of those who were harassed for over a year, or even the innocent non-Jews caught in belligerent crossfire, it might not have come to this. These are the same folks who would theatrically jump on a plane to El Salvador to visit a deported accused wife-beater and alleged gang member who entered our country illegally, but don't appear to have any time left to advocate for a Jewish American citizen, Edan Alexander, still held captive for over 18 months in a Hamas terror tunnel under Gaza. The bottom line is this: We are living at an inflection point in our country's history, and it is time for everyone to take a long, hard look in the mirror to see where they stand. If you are fine with protesters using their free speech to incite anti-Jewish hate, but not with the government using its free speech to stand up for the Jews; if you are okay with the IRS revoking tax breaks for racist institutions, but not for ones who ignore antisemitism; if you romanticize leaders of groups that endorse the murder of Jews, yet call it 'unlawful' when the government enforces civil rights; and if you care so much about 'illegal' detentions that you simply must get on a plane and act, but only when the person being held is not Jewish, well, there is a word for that, and it isn't pretty. Let's hope Harvard and its supporters realize what they're actually defending before it's too late. Their blind hatred for President Trump is leading them to actually openly fight for the 'right' to discriminate — and frankly, it's disgraceful. To paraphrase Vice President J.D. Vance: Harvard, do you hear yourself? Mark Goldfeder, J.D., is a law professor and CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. Follow him on X @markgoldfeder Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Harvard, do you hear yourself?
Earlier this month, the federal government withheld billions in funding from Harvard. Last week, the IRS considered whether the school should keep its tax-exempt status. Harvard's response? They've labeled these moves as somehow ' unlawful. ' But they can't explain how, because they're wrong. First, as it relates to funding, let's be clear: No institution is simply entitled to billions of taxpayer dollars. The federal government has the absolute right to attach conditions to the programs it pays for, especially when it comes to compliance with applicable civil rights laws. Contrary to what Harvard's leadership may believe, this isn't a First Amendment issue because the government is not suppressing free speech—it is exercising its own. And the Supreme Court has been crystal clear about this. In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), for example, the court explained that 'when government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says.' In fact, the court has continually refused 'to hold that the government unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals, because the program in advancing those goals necessarily discourages alternative goals.' In short, there is no First Amendment issue here because the government is not telling Harvard what to do: Harvard is free to keep on discriminating to its own heart's content — just not on the government's dime. Second, the IRS has full authority to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, and it is not a close call. Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) ruled that the IRS could (and should) revoke a university's tax-exempt status because its racially discriminatory practices violated public policy. In fact, in some ways, this case is even easier, because not only is discriminatory antisemitism in this context against public policy, it is also actually unlawful under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The fight against antisemitism has never been about Jewish exceptionalism, but rather Jewish equality, and while some talking heads might laugh at the idea of taking anti-Jewish hate just as seriously as other forms of discrimination, thankfully, the government is not laughing. The real story here should not be that Harvard is losing some funding, or that it might forfeit its taxpayer-subsidized preferential treatment. The focus should be on how hard and how openly the University is willing to fight for its self-given 'right' to continue violating civil rights laws with impunity. Shame on them. Shame as well on those public figures who somehow find their voices only just in time to criticize those finally imposing accountability where it is so desperately needed. Where were they when Jewish students were being attacked on campus? Silent. But when the Trump administration started deporting anti-Israel protest organizers like Mahmoud Khalil, these same politicians rushed to whitewash his violent behavior and paint him as a misunderstood peacenik. If only they had fought so hard to protect the rights of those who were harassed for over a year, or even the innocent non-Jews caught in belligerent crossfire, it might not have come to this. These are the same folks who would theatrically jump on a plane to El Salvador to visit a deported accused wife-beater and alleged gang member who entered our country illegally, but don't appear to have any time left to advocate for a Jewish American citizen, Edan Alexander, still held captive for over 18 months in a Hamas terror tunnel under Gaza. The bottom line is this: We are living at an inflection point in our country's history, and it is time for everyone to take a long, hard look in the mirror to see where they stand. If you are fine with protesters using their free speech to incite anti-Jewish hate, but not with the government using its free speech to stand up for the Jews; if you are okay with the IRS revoking tax breaks for racist institutions, but not for ones who ignore antisemitism; if you romanticize leaders of groups that endorse the murder of Jews, yet call it 'unlawful' when the government enforces civil rights; and if you care so much about 'illegal' detentions that you simply must get on a plane and act, but only when the person being held is not Jewish, well, there is a word for that, and it isn't pretty. Let's hope Harvard and its supporters realize what they're actually defending before it's too late. Their blind hatred for President Trump is leading them to actually openly fight for the 'right' to discriminate — and frankly, it's disgraceful. To paraphrase Vice President J.D. Vance: Harvard, do you hear yourself?
