Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘First Amendment’

Special Counsel John Durham Exonerates Donald Trump of ‘Russiagate‘” by Paul Craig Roberts, 5/16/2023

Durham Report Condemns the FBI’s Russia Probe – But Don’t Expect It to Make a Difference” by Johnathan Turley, 5/17/2023

Hunter Biden Faces no ‘Retribution After IRS Probe Team DisbandedSputnik, 5/18/2023

IRS removes ‘entire investigative team’ in Hunter Biden probe, whistleblower claims retaliation: report” by Bradford Betz, 5/15/2023

Ron DeSantis Flies To Israel To Destroy Free Speech In Florida” Gab News, 4/27/2023

Ron DeSantis Flies To Israel To Destroy Free Speech In Florida” by Andrew Torba 5/27/2023

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a non-tax-deductible donation to support the work of Lux Lucet

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Read Full Post »

Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, manages his shop in Lakewood on Aug. 15, 2018. Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post

Not that this should come as any big surprise, but Christian baker Jack Phillips once again finds himself under siege by the woke mafia

The latest round in the relentless attack on this man comes from the transgender mob.  In this case, a man pretending to be a woman by the name of Autumn Scardina filed a complete against Phillips after Phillips refused to bake him a cake celebrating his “transition” from male to female.  Phillips initially agreed to bake the cake, which was to be pink with blue icing.  But when Scardina told him the purpose of the cake was to celebrate his transition from man to woman, Phillips then refused on the ground that he did not believe someone could change genders and would not celebrate “somebody who thinks that they can.”

You may recall that Phillips won his 2018 case in the Supreme Court over an earlier legal attack on him for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  In that case, his lawyers argued successfully that forcing Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, which Phillips opposed – correctly – on the ground that same-sex weddings were a violation of his religious beliefs, represented a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. 

According to Phillips, he is “an artist who uses cakes as ‘canvas’ to express ideas and celebrate events.” The argument seems to be that by forcing him to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding or a gender transition, he is being forced to say something that he does not want to say, and that violates his conscience as a Christian. 

As a Christian, I have a lot of sympathy for Jack Phillips.  It is an outrage that this man has been harassed for the past decade simply for wanting to live his professional life in accord with his Christian conscience.  I also understand why his lawyers have advised him to argue his case on First Amendment grounds.  His legal team probably considered it the clearest path to victory.  And they were right, at least up to a point.  Phillips did win his 2018 case before the Supreme Court.

But now he’s back in legal hot water again, and part of the problem is that his legal advisors did not attack the fundamental issue in his original case.  Phillips had the right to refuse to bake the same-sex wedding cake.  But the ground of his rightful refusal was not the First Amendment, but rather his rights as a private property owner. 

Read Full Post »

Over the past few years, it’s been common to hear defenders of social media censorship retort to those who complain about, “Twitter is a private company, and they can ban whom they want.  If you don’t like it, go start your own Twitter!” 

One interesting aspect of this argument is that those who made it generally were individuals who were not known to respect laissez-faire capitalism or private property.  In fact, they tended to be socialists of one stripe or another. 

Those who complained about the censorship, generally those people who tended to favor political and economic liberty, then were wrongfooted.  Either they felt they had to call for government regulation of social media, which contradicted their free market principles or to make charges that the government was behind the censorship, at which point they’d be called “conspiracy theorists.”

“Conspiracy theorist” is one of those terms that seemingly everyone wants to avoid.  “I’m by no means a conspiracy theorist,” is a common turn of phrase people will use when they’re about to introduce an idea that sounds like a conspiracy theory.  It’s as if to believe in conspiracies is the very height of ignorance, and that one must deny conspiracies exist if he wants to remain a member of society in good standing. 

But conspiracies do exist and are even recognized in criminal law.  In many Western nations, one can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.  In the Bible, we find many conspiracies. When Absalom sought to overthrow David, his plot was rightly described in the King James Bible as a conspiracy.  Twice, the Apostle Paul found himself the object of conspiracies to kill him.  The arrest and crucifixion of Christ was the culmination of a three-year-long conspiracy by the Jewish religious leaders to get rid of the man they perceived, rightly, as a threat to their power.  Doubtless, other examples of conspiracies can be found in the Bible, but these should be sufficient to make the point that conspiracies are not a figment of the imagination, but a documented historical reality. 

If he has done nothing else, Elon Musk has exposed for all the world to see that the “conspiracy theorists” were right.  As the Twitter Files have revealed, the government was deeply involved in the social media censorship business.  Not that there was any lack of evidence of this previously.  For example, the New York Post ran a headline on July 15, 2021, that read, “White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation.’” The Independent ran a piece on February 3, 2022, with the headline, “White House urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: “More can be done.’”  Why did the White House want Spotify to censor Joe Rogan?  It was due to the popular podcaster’s explosive interview with Dr. Robert Malone, who among other things, called the hysteria over Covid an example of “mass formation psychosis.” 

Read Full Post »

“These companies need to have some other North Star than just making money and increasing profit shares,” former President Barack Obama said in a speech at Stanford University. Twitter’s all-out attempt to keep Elon Musk from buying the platform exposes Obama’s comments as so much “misinformation.” Credit…Jim Wilson/The New York Times

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

  • The First Amendment to the Constitution

As our once free nation continues to sink under the weight of evil, anti-Christian ideas put into practice by an evil, ungodly governing class, it’s worth taking a moment to review the Biblical roots of one of our most cherished and important God-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights.  The right of free speech.   

Just last week, former President Barak Obama gave a speech in which he once again called for government regulation of social media platforms.  “People are dying,” the former president told us, “because of misinformation.”

Misinformation is bad, according to Obama. And misinformation must be stopped.

Using as an excuse prior unconstitutional regulatory exercises of federal government power, Obama proposed called for the regulation of the social media companies to stop the spread of “toxic information.”

Read Full Post »

Today’s pandemic response is eerily similar to the smallpox pandemic response” by Steve Kirsch, 2/13/2022

Read Full Post »

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a non-tax-deductible donation to support the work of Lux Lucet.

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Read Full Post »

US Federal Courts Reject Biden’s Tyranny but Austria Shows Its True Nazi Colors” by Paul Craig Roberts, 1/22/2022

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a non tax-deductible donation to support the work of Lux Lucet.

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Read Full Post »

BDS

A screenshot of C-Span at the end of a tally of a US House of Representatives vote to condemn the boycott Israel movement on July 23, 2019.

Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

– The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Last Tuesday, the United States House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn a movement of private citizens to boycott companies doing business with the state of Israel. Palestinian Omar Barghouti is generally credited with founding The Boycott, Disinvest, Sanctions movement (BDS) in 2005, and since that time the movement has gained supporters in many nations. Claiming inspiration from the South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS website states that, “the Palestinian BDS call urges nonviolent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law by meeting three demands.”  They are:

  1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall,
  2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality, and
  3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

As the BDS movement’s name suggests, the goal of the organizers is to bring economic and social pressure on Israel to accede to the group’s demands. It is beyond the scope of this post to argue whether or not the goals, methods and motives of those involved in the BDS movement deserve the support of Americans in general or American Christians in particular. Rather, the focus of this post is on the attempts by various Zionist lobbying groups to combat the BDS movement in the United States by shutting down their ability to peacefully protest.

In the opinion of this author, the ongoing attempts by the Israel lobby in America to condemn and to even outlaw private, peaceful protests against the policies of the Israeli government are unconstitutional and represent a grave danger to the American republic. In short, the Anti-BDS movement is a direct threat to one of America’s most cherished liberties, the right to free speech.

Yet despite the grave danger to the American republic, there has been very little criticism of this movement either in the mainstream press or the alternate media. Especially disappointing the apparent lack of scrutiny from Christians, who of all people should be the most vigorous defenders of free speech.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

SMC_Facebook_2“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19).

These familiar words of Jesus commonly are known to Christians as the Great Commission. While not the only call for evangelism in the New Testament, they certainly are an important proof text supporting the call of Christians to evangelize the lost.

The Apostle Paul provides another proof text in his epistle to the Romans. In Chapter 10 he writes, “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?’ (Romans 10:14, 15).

Now someone may ask what these passages have to do with the topic at hand, the tech left’s attack on free speech and why Christians, and especially Christians, should object to it.

It is my hope that a little thought would make the relationship between these two passages and the issue at hand clear. Christianity is a religion of the Word. And how to people hear that Word? From a preacher. If the Word cannot be spoken and written, if it cannot be communicated to unbelievers, they have no chance of coming to faith in Christ.

Further, Christ commands us to go, to make disciples and to teach all his commandments. To fulfill this commandment, Christians must use words. That is to say, they must be able both to speak and to write.

For any civil magistrate to prohibit or to attempt to prohibit Christians from speaking freely means to prohibit them from doing the very thing Christ himself commanded his disciples to do. This represents an enormous abuse of power by the civil authorities and is itself a great evil.

Someone may object to my reasoning here by saying that internet censorship is not being done by the civil authorities, but rather by private companies who have the right to regulate traffic on their websites. This may seem like a plausible argument, but as I hope to show next week, Big Tech as represented by companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter are not acting on their own when they deplatform conservative and libertarian political commentary. Rather, in this author’s opinion, these companies really are acting on behalf of Deep State to censor views it deems dangerous to its cause.

As some have put it, the Deep State has simply outsourced censorship, which in the United States cannot be done directly by government officials due to the First Amendment, to private corporations which are to a significant degree under the control of the Deep State.

As I noted last week, I hope to lay out the case that it’s the globalist Deep State that’s largely behind the push for social media censorship. Lord willing, I plan to make this case next week.

For this week’s installment, I’d like to continue with additional examples of deplatforming found in the Scriptures. Last seek we looked at deplatforming in the Old Testament. This week, our focus will be on deplatforming in the New Testament.

Deplatforming in the New Testament

Although the deplatformings recorded in the New Testament happened many hundreds of years after those we looked at last week in the Old Testament, the spirit, the purpose, behind them is the same. In both cases, it is the vested power interests attempting to quash any challenge to their authority.

The premier examples of deplatforming and attempted deplatforming in the New Testament can be found in the life of Jesus Christ himself. Throughout his earthly ministry, the Jewish religious authorities were Jesus greatest enemies and constantly sought out ways to silence him.

In one case, ordinary Synagogue members attempted to deplatform Christ by throwing him off a hill in Nazareth when they decided they didn’t like his sermon.

And in the end it was the combined efforts of the Jewish leaders, the Jewish people and the Roman civil authorities who joined forces to temporarily succeed in deplatforming Jesus when they brutally executed him on the cross.

Worth noting is the reason why the Jewish religious leaders and some of the Jewish people wanted Christ killed. It was not what Jesus did, but what Jesus said that drew their wrath.

Consider this passage from John’s Gospel. “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, ‘Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?’ The Jews answered Him, saying, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God’ ” (John 10:31-33).

Note well that it was what Jesus said, not what he did, that so angered these people, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You…make Yourself God.”

Consider another example, this one recorded by Luke. Early in his ministry, Luke tells us that Jesus went into the synagogue in Nazareth and there read the Scriptures and preached.

Jesus’ hometown crowd was on his side at first, but quickly became hostile when he recounted how the prophet Elijah was sent outside the covenant to Zaraphath to help a widow suffering from the famine and how Naaman alone was cured of leprosy by Elisha.

Luke tells us these good church goers were “filled with wrath” and led Jesus outside the city where they planned to throw him off a cliff. That’s deplatforming with a vengeance.

Note that here, as with incident recorded by John, the impetus for the attempt of Jesus life was what he said, not what he did.

At Jesus trial before the elders of the people and the chief priests, once again we see Jesus words were what got him in trouble. Luke notes that Jesus interlocutors asked him if he were the Son of God. When Jesus told them, “You rightly say that I am,” they rested their case, saying, “What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

John the Baptist also was deplatformed for what he said. In John’s case, his speech got him imprisoned and beheaded.

As Matthew tells us, Herod had John thrown in prison, “Because John had said to him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her [Herodias, his brother Phillips wife].’ ” Matthew records that Herod would have killed John for his saying but for the fact that he feared the people, who regarded John as a prophet.

Peter and John are another example of deplatforming. They were arrested for their preaching (speech) in the temple and dragged before the Sanhedrin who “commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.”

This is noteworthy, for Peter had just performed a miracle, healing a man who had been lame since birth. The Sanhedrin even admitted that “a notable miracle had been done” through the apostles. But the Sanhedrin did not order Peter and John not to perform miracles, they ordered them not to speak nor teach in the name of Jesus. It was the apostles’ speaking that concerned the Sanhedrin, not their miracle working.

Acts chapter 5 recounts how Peter and John were arrested and deplatformed a second time. On this occasion, there were not brought directly before the Sanhedrin, but were imprisoned. Scripture tells us that an angel of the Lord came and brought them out of prison, telling them, “God, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life.”

Once again, we see the emphasis laid on the apostles preaching, their speaking, not on their miracle working. The angel did not tell them to go to the temple and heal people. He told them to preach.

The Biblical emphasis could not be more clear. Christianity is about words. It’s about understanding. It’s about belief. In order to understand and agree with the Gospel, one first has to hear the words of the Gospel. In order to hear and believe the Gospel, the information must be communicated in words.

The ministry experience of the Apostle Paul mirrors that of the examples above. Time and again Paul found himself in trouble, not for what he did, but for what he said.

Any number of examples could be brought forth to buttress this point. One example comes right after his conversion on the Damascus road. Acts chapter 9 records how Paul “Immediately…preached Christ in the synagogues,” and that he, “confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus was is the Christ.”

So how did the Jews in Damascus react to Paul’s preaching. Acts tells us they, “plotted to kill him.”

Another example of deplatforming can be seen in Paul’s speech to the crowd at the temple. Paul was addressing an already hostile crowd when he told of his commission by Christ to go to the Gentiles.

Acts notes that the crowd listed until Paul said “Gentiles” and then started to riot, crying out, tearing their clothes and throwing dust in the air. This resulted in Paul’s arrest, spending many years in jail, and being taken to Rome to appeal to Caesar. Paul was deplatformed because of what he said.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

SMC_Facebook_2

So the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “[There is] still one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the LORD; but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil” (1 Kings 22:8).

The First Amendment deals with the issues of free speech and the freedom of religion. It’s not an accident that these two concepts are linked. For Christianity, and it was Christianity that the framers of the Constitution had in mind, is a religion of the Word. “How can they hear without a preacher?” was Paul’s rhetorical question to the Romans. The obvious answer is that unless men are free to preach the Gospel, sinners never will hear of salvation by belief alone in Christ Jesus.

Christianity’s emphasis that salvation comes only by understanding, and agreeing with, the propositions of Scripture, requires that men be able to speak that truth freely. Hence it is every Christian’s concern that the liberty to speak and to discuss the Word of God not be inhibited by legal restrictions.

And because Christians are commanded to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated, one of the implications of Christianity is that all should enjoy to right to freely discuss their ideas without fear of legal sanction. In a Christian society, there are no such things as thought crimes. We leave that mistaken notion to the Marxists, the fascists, and other authoritarians.

Christianity is not, as the ACLU would like you to believe, hostile to free speech. Rather, it is it’s only source and guarantor.

Because free speech is both an implication of Christianity and necessary to its propagation, the maintenance of free and open discussion is of great importance to Christians. Likewise, when free speech is threatened, it is incumbent upon Christians to come to its defense. If, when the free speech comes under attack, Christians remain silent, we do so, not only to our shame, but to our own harm as well.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I undertook to write about the deplatforming of Alex Jones and other prominent conservative and libertarian thinkers last week, and it is why I’m writing about it again this week. Whatever one may think of Alex Jones, Mark Dice, Diamond and Silk, Daniel McAdams and Peter Van Buren – whether you love them, hate them, or never watch them, it matters not – the fact that these individuals and others have been the targets of an apparently coordinated attack by Big Tech is a matter of great concern.

If Christians stand by and say nothing while Apple, Spotify, Facebook, and Twitter deplatform Alex Jones simply because they don’t like what he says, they should not be surprised when these same organizations target them for deplatforming at some point in the future when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

Now, some may argue that these are private companies, and private companies have the right to regulate what is said on their own platforms. I agree. But that said, I am also of the opinion that there is more to this situation than private businesses simply running their social media platforms in the way they see fit.

A strong circumstantial case can be made that the deplatforming of conservative and libertarian voices – a deplatforming that has been going on for some time and one which has recently picked up steam – is really a joint venture of between privately owned social media enterprises and the Deep State, the permanent, unelected government that largely runs the country the way it wants to, regardless of what politicians happen to be in power.

Lord willing, I shall make that case in a future installment. But for today, I’d like to dig a bit deeper into the Scriptures to show just how strong the Biblical support for free speech is.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: