biffbobfred Ars Scholae Palatinae
11y
1,172
Will they kick off Meta/Facebook for torrenting, or is “pirating is only bad if you’re not rich already” going to be the rule here? //

Messy Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
21y
190
can we just have dumb pipes? i don't want a utility knowing or caring what i do.
imagine getting your electricity cut off because the power company doesn't like what you cook. //

thadco Ars Centurion
9y
380
You child stole a candy bar. No more food for you or your whole family forever! //

TylerH Ars Praefectus
13y
4,472
Subscriptor
I would very much like the justices to ask counsel whether they would kick a customer like Facebook/Meta off for large-scale pirating in abuse of this position, or if they would turn a blind eye if the organization has a large enough contract.

I would also very much like the justices to ask whether Sony has considered just making the pirated content more conveniently available for purchase/access. I wager a large portion of pirated content is not actually readily available in an offline-consumable format.

Glaringly absent from these arguments (at least those covered in the article) is "why should the ISPs act merely on the accusation of piracy? Why not just send a notice after you have sued an individual in court and won/proven that they are the specific person committing the piracy? Wouldn't that preserve liability and due process, albeit at the cost of the copyright holder (where it ought to belong, frankly)?" //

Mad Klingon Ars Tribunus Militum
5y
1,776
Subscriptor++
Is Sony and the other copyright holders willing to assume liability for damages for submitting a list of IP addresses performing infringement and being wrong? Even a 90% correct rate would result in 100 improper cutoffs for every 1000 addresses. I doubt that Sony's lists are that good. A fair number of folks use an ISP connection as a VOIP landline. What damages apply if that is cutoff due to being on a Sony list and someone dies due to 911 not working? Or a house is destroyed due to delays in fire department arriving? Bonus points if that person proves no infringement happened. And before someone says "But cell phones....", not everyone lives in an area where cell services is available or reliable.

With Internet connections becoming increasing required for modern life, cutting a house off from the Internet should be a method of last resort. //

GFKBill Ars Tribunus Militum
21y
2,674
Subscriptor
“The approach of terminating all access to the Internet based on infringement, it seems extremely overbroad given the centrality of the Internet to modern life and given the First Amendment,” he said.
And "based on infringement" isn't even in the picture - the studios haven't taken these infringers to court, Cox et al are supposed to just take their word for it. On that basis alone this should be chucked out.

Sony and their ilk want a cheap shortcut, when they should be filing charges against the infringing user and letting a judge determine penalties, if they prove their case. //

GFKBill Ars Tribunus Militum
21y
2,674
Subscriptor
TylerH said:

Glaringly absent from these arguments (at least those covered in the article) is "why should the ISPs act merely on the accusation of piracy? Why not just send a notice after you have sued an individual in court and won/proven that they are the specific person committing the piracy? Wouldn't that preserve liability and due process, albeit at the cost of the copyright holder (where it ought to belong, frankly)?"

The whole thing is an end-run around due process, because it's easy and saves them the expense and effort of suing.

The courts should be telling them to pound sand. //

42Kodiak42 Ars Scholae Palatinae
13y
1,165
Clement said that hotels limit speeds to restrict peer-to-peer downloading, and suggested that universities do the same. “I don’t think it would be the end of the world if universities provided service at a speed that was sufficient for most other purposes but didn’t allow the students to take full advantage of BitTorrent,” he said. “I could live in that world. But in all events, this isn’t a case that’s just about universities. We’ve never sued the universities.”
Clement is either a ... moron, or is hoping the judges are by telling them this outright lie. This is nothing more than a brash assertion that a network configuration that supports peer-to-peer services has no valid personal use cases.
Stewart gave a hypothetical in which an individual Internet user is sued for infringement in a district court. The district court could award damages and impose an injunction to prevent further infringement, but it probably couldn’t “enjoin the person from ever using the Internet again,” Stewart said.
A court isn't even likely to block the user's internet access while the case is ongoing. The fact of the matter is simple: People's livelihoods can very well depend on continued and reliable internet access. What Sony is asking for is a clear violation of our fifth amendment rights by requiring ISPs to enact an unjustified punishment without due process in a court of law.

When other credentialed outlets and journalists spread lies about the Russia collusion hoax, or the Covington kids hoax, or ... The Federalist fearlessly reported the truth.

Corrupt corporate journalists published lies and regurgitated regime propaganda and were given awards. We published facts and the truth, and the U.S. federal government responded by waging a global war of illegal censorship against The Federalist. They profited from lies, while we were punished for reporting the truth.

Where were these self-styled First Amendment defenders when we were illegally censored and targeted for debunking Deep State lies and hoaxes? Many of them not only refused to defend us, but cheered the illegal censorship efforts against us. //

So you’ll have to forgive our skepticism of corporate media’s ostensible new love of press freedoms and the First Amendment. We actually read through the new Department of War media access guidelines, and we found zero new restrictions on the ability of journalists to report on or criticize the government. Many corporate journalists eager to grandstand will claim otherwise without evidence, but we will show you what the actual document says. //

Those are the actual facts. And as usually is the case, we are likely the first outlet to report them. We look forward to eagerly covering the Pentagon, both on-site and from a distance, with the same fearlessness and courage and devotion to the truth that we have exhibited since we were created. And if the new guidelines result in fewer professional con artists and media hoaxers roaming the halls looking for new lies to peddle, so be it.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released a video highlighting the huge win given to parents by the Supreme Court when they ruled in favor of the parents of children attending the Montgomery County school system, in the landmark case of Mahmoud v. Taylor.

Parents sued Montgomery County School Board Superintendent Thomas Taylor for introducing illustrated LGBT books into the children's curriculum without notifying parents. The school decided it didn't need to ask permission, resulting in the lawsuit that went all the way up to the highest court in the land, where it backed the parents and upheld their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Now the school must notify the parents before introducing these things, and parents have the option to opt their child out of the lesson.

McMahon said this "is not only a win for religious liberty, but parental rights." //

Moreover, it should be pointed out that Mahmoud v. Taylor was a 6-3 decision that was divided along ideological lines. That we'll have a Supreme Court that isn't ideologically tilted to the left is not guaranteed for the future, so what was decided today effectively needs to be codified into law.

Parental Oversight and Educational Transparency Act (H.R. 1416) is important for just this very reason. //

Too many school districts and even teachers with personal socio-political itches to scratch believe that your child is their sculpting clay and that their authority outweighs the parents when it comes to education. They are wrong about this.

But this is why H.R. 1416 is necessary.

I think too many public school educators and staff forgot that public schools are public institutions, not sovereign kingdoms where students — and even parents to a degree — are their subjects to be ruled over.

The same arguments being used to shut down the Satanic Temple, “too disturbing,” “not appropriate,” and “offensive to children,” are the same ones that will be used one day to shut you down.

Do you believe marriage is between a man and a woman? That could be labeled disturbing.

Do you read the Bible in public? Someone might find that offensive.

You wear a crucifix, pray in a school lunchroom, or talk about creation? One day, that’ll be the excuse. “Not appropriate for children.”

We’re building the tools of censorship. And we’re handing them to people who think tolerance ends when their feelings get hurt.

Today, it’s Baphomet. Tomorrow, it’s Bethlehem.

If you’re cheering this, you're building your own cell.

The Capitol Isn’t a Church
The Iowa State Capitol doesn’t belong to the governor. Or the majority. It belongs to us, all of us.

If Christians can set up a nativity scene, then other groups can set up something, too, even if it’s ridiculous, even if it’s grotesque. Even if you think it’s morally bankrupt.

That’s the price of liberty.

It’s uncomfortable. //

This Isn’t Complicated
Let them put up their damn statue.

If it bothers you, look away.

Or pray harder.

Or put up a bigger, better display of your own.

Don’t ask the state to silence them for you.

Because that’s not liberty, that’s cowardice.

And deep down, I think we know that. We just don’t want to admit the uncomfortable truth:

We’re the ones failing the test.

Not them. //

The Constitution was never about safety.

It was about risk. Risking offense. Risking speech. Risking freedom.

Everybody counts.

Or nobody does. //

Brytek
11 hours ago
There are incompatible religious organizations as well as ideologies. Not all can be reconciled enough to live in the same community. Some even go to the extent to kill those they cannot convert - and that is part of their religion, in some it is a requirement. The point is not all can be peacefully brought together, not all can live side by side. Do we, in the name of "liberty" allow the extermination of one group from another to satisfy liberty? I suggest that there are limits to liberty for it to exist at all. The generalization, for liberty to exist it must exist for all, is an axiom that sounds good but it denies reality in that many religions or ideologies do not allow freedom for those not part of their religious order or community. For this axiom to be true it must by definition violate those religious precepts, liberty for all denies liberty for some, which make the statement nonsense, which invalidates the whole.

The anti-gun group Moms Demand has now gone a step further, as seen at an event they staged in Kentucky in support of new proposed legislation for gun safety education. Though this rally was back in February, it has taken time for a realization to come over the state, and specifically the local media, and it is an indictment of all involved. Credit to The Citizen's Voice for detailing this development.

Calvin Polachek detailed how he endured a shooting at Dallas High School, in Luzerne County, Kentucky, back in 2017, a tragedy that took the lives of his brother, best friend, as well as nine others that day. //

In one fashion - and only one fashion - he is accurate; nothing has changed. This is because nothing had to change. His story is completely fraudulent. There was no shooting whatsoever at this school.

For this fraud to transpire is astounding. This hoaxer, Calvin, was allegedly never vetted, and his story, clearly, was never substantiated. The passing of blame has been almost comical, were this not so pernicious. //

This is clearly a case of confirmation bias, where a compliant press promoted a gun control storyline and had a sympathetic video clip and some choice quotes that perfectly aligned with the narrative. It was too good to check, and now more credibility has been set on fire as a result.

You could say that the prohibition of religious freedom for anyone would be a real knock to the health and vibrancy of the United States, but this applies to Christianity more than any other religion in the world. Without Christianity, it all falls apart. Christianity is the cornerstone from which all other religions enjoy their existence within its borders.

Historically, other religions are not so accommodating to others, especially when they become nationalistic, and that surprisingly includes Buddhism. The only other religions aside from Christianity that allow for other religions to be practiced freely are Judaism and Sikhism, but since the United States has been a Christian nation from the beginning, the freedom to practice your beliefs relies on Christian foundations.

And before someone says, "Atheism would allow it," I've already given you a few examples of atheist governments above that treat Christianity as a danger. Atheist-based states don't like it when the people hold something higher in authority than it. However, atheists also appreciate their free speech rights, and many of these rights are a thing because Christianity made it so.

Moreover, it's these Christian foundations that allow for the greatest of our God-given rights, free speech, which goes hand-in-hand with the freedom to practice religion. The freedom to voice your faith cannot be restricted, as the profession of faith requires speech. There's a reason why the left often tries to tie hate speech to Christian beliefs. //

Moreover, the entirety of our rights as citizens of the United States are the end result of Christian philosophy. No matter your belief, Christianity's moral teachings and societal influence are what keep the United States free and healthy.

If Democrats were allowed to restrict it or terminate it, the bottom would fall out of this nation. Your God-given rights would mean nothing because the people in charge wouldn't recognize any god but themselves. //

Retired Professor
6 hours ago
The first stage of this is to restrict the exercise of religion to churches and other such contained venues. That's what Obama clearly wanted to do. Street corner evangelism? Disrupts traffic and "public safety." Voluntary prayer groups in public schools? Violates the (so-called) "wall of separation." Prayer before a city council meeting? Same.

I could go on, but this has been the tactic of the Left ever since the days of Earl Warren. We won't win that battle until Jesus comes back, but meanwhile we still have to fight. //

Platypus
3 hours ago
I recommend the book, The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee... a Chinese believer that was
educated in the west but also spent decades in a Chinese prison. He also wrote several other books
all of them worth reading.

Last week, The New York Times published an exposé that, in any morally serious culture, would have been met with a wave of bipartisan outrage and urgent congressional action. Instead, it was largely met with a blasé silence. The article, which detailed how Pornhub’s own internal documents reveal years of knowingly hosting—and profiting from—videos of children suffering nonconsensual acts, isn’t a revelation. It’s confirmation of the evil at work here.

We now have irrefutable evidence of what has long been plain to any honest observer: The commercial pornography industry is predatory, lawless, and deeply dependent on abuse. And yet it continues to operate in broad daylight, shielded by an outdated moral indifference and a confused understanding of free speech. //

Our freedoms require moral boundaries. The question isn’t whether we can restrict pornography. The question is whether we have the courage to do so. Though we may begin with urgent reforms to protect children and prosecute abuse, these are steps toward a larger aim: the complete dismantling of the pornography industry. //

These incremental steps are necessary because the political will to abolish pornography outright likely doesn’t yet exist. For instance, just this month, Utah senator Mike Lee introduced a measure that would redefine obscenity, paving the way for a nationwide prohibition on pornography. It’s not the first time Lee has initiated this process. He attempted it in both 2022 and 2024, but it has yet to gain traction in the Senate.

Any legal structure that normalizes pornography is ultimately incompatible with human flourishing. But every step toward being rid of it societally is a move in the right direction. There’s no First Amendment defense for rape. There’s no civil liberty that justifies monetized abuse. There’s no technological innovation that makes human degradation acceptable. //

We cannot claim to care about women while tolerating an industry that degrades them. We cannot say we value children while giving predators free rein. We cannot speak of freedom while sanctioning enslavement. //

The modern pornography industry isn’t built on free expression but on the illegal commodification of human beings. It relies on anonymity, impunity, and a legal vacuum in which abuse thrives. //

No version of this industry can be baptized, cleaned up, or redeemed. It mustn’t be tolerated, accommodated, or reformed—it must be dismantled. Our convictions, our witness, and our love for neighbor demand no less.

It’s time to ban pornography.

In my work with legal historian Professor Mark David Hall, we’ve shown that despite a widespread misunderstanding of the role of Christianity in our founding and decades of bad Supreme Court rulings, such displays are constitutional — a lesson the ACLU and others who challenged the Louisiana law are likely to learn soon.

While the founders were uniformly opposed to government imposing religion, they did think religion, especially Christianity, was extremely important to the founding of the country. They understood that humans are created in the image of God and instilled with dignity. And if people have dignity, they must have rights to protect that dignity. This is the religious inspiration for the huge number of rights enumerated for all citizens at the founding of the republic.

The founders also believed that to ensure the success of the American experiment, people needed to use those rights responsibly. Put bluntly, they must be moral. George Washington said in his Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” For a republican form of government to work, you must have a moral people, meaning a religious people.

What about Thomas Jefferson, you may ask? He is held up as the poster child for the strict separation of church and state, famously informing the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 that the First Amendment created a “wall of separation between Church & State.”

The purpose of Jefferson’s letter was to reassure the Baptist congregation that the government wouldn’t interfere with their church, not that religion would have no place in the actions of government. He did not think the Constitution kept the government out of the business of religion altogether. For instance, as governor of Virginia, he invited his fellow Americans to join him in prayer. Jefferson also made the War Department and Treasury Department buildings available for church services. So, in his own political life, Jefferson didn’t act as if there were a wall of separation between church and state. //

Shortly after Gov. Jeff Landry signed the Louisiana law mandating displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, the American Civil Liberties Union sued. It claimed the Ten Commandments are not a source of American law and that having the displays would unconstitutionally expose some people to a religion they don’t believe in. A few months later, a federal judge ruled in the ACLU’s favor, and the state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Professor Hall and I submitted an amicus brief in support of Louisiana with the appellate court.

CNN — a far-left outlet a jury found is literally fake news — is upset that Christians were permitted to openly pray to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ while on the job at the Pentagon.

The outlet’s hissy fit stems from a Christian prayer service Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hosted at the Defense Department on Wednesday. The event — for which Hegseth himself said attendance was on a “voluntary basis” — featured remarks and prayers from Hegseth and the defense secretary’s Tennessee-based pastor, Brooks Potteiger. //

As aptly noted by Federalist CEO Sean Davis, “America was founded as a Christian nation by Christian men with Christian ideals and morals and laws for Christian purposes, and the only thing the First Amendment prohibits is the literal establishment of a specific government church funded by taxes.” In other words, the framers did not want the U.S. government “establishing” an official state church subsidized by the American people.

In no way did Hegseth’s voluntary prayer service violate this constitutional provision. Not even close. //

What’s become evidently clear, at CNN and other left-wing propaganda outlets, is that it’s perfectly OK to dishonestly question, ridicule, and/or outright smear Christianity if doing so can help advance leftists’ agenda. And given that their worldview is antithetical to Christian teachings, it’s safe to assume this despicable trend is here to stay.

The sense of entitlement here is just disgusting. First of all, it's absolutely clear that the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that a charitable organization, including specifically a university, can lose its tax-exempt status if they are violating fundamental policy

The reality here is that elite universities are undermining confidence in the entire sector. Jewish students are being harassed and assaulted, and elite university administrators have done nothing to stop it, including at Harvard. Financial incentives seem to be the only lever that we can pull to stop the racist and anti-Semitic conduct on their campuses.

Goldfeder was referencing a 1983 case in which the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the IRS had authority to deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, Goldsboro Christian School, and other private and religious schools with racially discriminatory educational policies. //

Levin continued:

You have Jewish kids on campus who are being violently threatened, who are being harmed, in some cases running for their safety. That is very serious. If we had black kids on campus running for their safety, locking themselves in libraries, locking themselves in dorm rooms ... you'd be hearing very different stories than you hear from this guy with a smirk on his face. //

ChesterTheGoat
9 hours ago
The holding in the 1983 Bob Jones case is not limited to just interracial dating. It is not that narrow. The SCOTUS held that an IRS 501c3 org "must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy" and that racially discriminatory conduct was against public policy. To the extent that public universities are found to be following racially discriminatory policies, it is perfectly within SCOTUS precedent to revoke their 501c3 status.

Banned Books Week is coming to K-12 schools and city libraries across the nation September 18-24. This is a time for librarians to promote books that have been challenged for offensive content, such as sexually explicit writing and images, the promotion of so-called transgender lifestyles, and child sexual abuse.

Librarians get to tout their activism as a virtuous commitment to First Amendment freedoms for students and others and they label those who don’t like the banned books as censors. But many of these books actually fall under the legal definition of obscenity. Others discuss things like the steps of “transgender transitioning” and how children can hide their internet search history from their parents. Nevertheless, many school and classroom libraries still carry them.

Research by Judith Reisman and Mary McAlister in the Liberty University Law Review, “Materials Deemed Harmful to Minors Are Welcomed into Classrooms and Libraries via Educational ‘Obscenity Exemptions,’” relayed that the Supreme Court has already settled that obscene material is not protected by the Constitution but left the definition of what is obscene to individual states based on the characteristics of their communities. Most states and the District of Columbia have obscenity laws with prohibitions on disseminating material that is “harmful to minors.” //

For books like “Gender Queer,” I’m unable to replicate the pictures depicted in the book for this article, as I would be subject to legal penalties. Likewise, a father at a recent school board meeting had his microphone silenced for attempting to read from some of the objectionable books found in his child’s school because the school board was aware that allowing the words to air was illegal.

But, magically, once a child enters a school library, a librarian can provide “Gender Queer” and other challenged books to him or her without fear of prosecution. //

As an example of a state’s obscenity exemption, take a look at Texas Penal Code Section 43.24, which is the law that prohibits distribution of harmful material to children. The specific exemption is found at 43.24(c), and it provides “an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification.”

But Texas State Rep. Steve Toth is trying to change that.

Despite a state ban on sectarian charter schools, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved St. Isidore’s request to participate in the state’s charter school program. The ban is rooted in the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment added to Oklahoma's constitution in 1907.

This set up an interesting conflict where the governor, a Republican, and the Republican state superintendent of public instruction supported the applications, but the Republican attorney general brought the case that the Supreme Court heard Wednesday. He sued in 2023 to block the charter because it would violate state law and the US Constitution. In June 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with Attorney General Gentner Drummond that St. Isidore's Catholic character, despite being open to everyone and requiring attendance of no one, would violate the Constitution's establishment clause.

The crux of the questioning centered on religious neutrality versus hostility to religion. Justice Kavanaugh hit this theme hard. “You can’t treat religious people, and religious institutions, and religious speech as second-class in the United States,” Kavanaugh said to Gregory Garre, a former Bush administration solicitor general who represented Oklahoma's Attorney General Gentner Drummond. (As an aside, it is interesting to note how many prominent "conservatives" are lining up to oppose what I consider to be conservative positions once those positions have the high likelihood of becoming law. Funny, that.) “And when you have a program that’s open to all comers except religion...that seems like rank discrimination against religion,” Kavanaugh added. “They’re not asking for special treatment, they’re not asking for favoritism. They’re just saying, ‘Don’t treat us worse because we’re religious.’” //

If the Court rules the way it appears headed, it will shake up the charter school programs everywhere. First off, it will mean the thirty-eight Blaine Amendment states can no longer use that to block religious schools from applying for charter school status. The attorney for Oklahoma painted a picture of this, opening the door for the state to make personnel and curriculum decisions. "And if religious schools can qualify as public charter schools, it will raise questions about who can be admitted to such schools, whom the schools can hire as teachers, and what the curricula at those schools will be."

In reality, Oklahoma's lawyer is out of his tree. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the government has to stay out of the hiring and firing decisions of people filling "ministerial" functions in religious organizations (Supreme Court Tells Ninth Circuit to Stay Out of Personnel Decisions of Religious Organizations – RedState). And there is no controversy over admission (anyone who wishes to participate may), and St. Isidore agreed to follow the state educational standards when it applied for the charter.

Some online comments have warned that this opens the door to "Satanist" schools or Alphabet-people schools. News flash, we already have those. The real fear by the establishment, Democrat and Republican, is that religious charter schools will proliferate (they will) and that many parents will opt for them because they can be sure their kids will not be introduced to gay porn or secretly "transitioned" without their knowledge or consent. The same people invariably raise the question of Islamic madrassas as though I give a rip about how someone else educates their child. As the charter lays out specific testing and achievement goals, the fear of Middle East-style schools is simply a straw man argument designed to appeal to the worst sort of bigotry. //

The only real question is whether the Court will follow the direction of Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh and issue a full-throated defense of religion as a critical component of American history and society, or will it just nibble around the edges, causing decades of future controversy. //

Ready2Squeeze
3 hours ago
The real opposition to this is by the Teacher Unions ... if religious schools take off, union membership will likely drop off - and with it union dues payments. //

anon-tf71 Ready2Squeeze
3 hours ago
I'd say the States are even more opposed. When this happens they lose some control of education, maybe even all of it.

Not that this diminishes the (religious?) ferver with which teachers unions oppose it. //

eburke
3 hours ago edited
"it is interesting to note how many prominent "conservatives" are lining up to oppose what I consider to be conservative positions once those positions have the high likelihood of becoming law."

Of all the things Trump has accomplished (and the list is lengthy) his exposure of the faux conservative wing of the GOP is at the very top of the list. He has caused these UniParty hacks to expose themselves for whom they really are...and they hate him for it. //

PubliusCryptus
2 hours ago edited
How about the Federal and State governments stay out of schooling altogether? Make schools competitive, profit-driven organizations; that means antitrust actions against teachers(and other) unions. It also means shining a spot light on tax collections and requiring that those collections be justified by value delivered to the taxpayers. It has become very clear(Thank you DOGE) that government is, almost always, a terrible waste of resources. I would point to Medicare as corollary evidence of that claim. Governments should be the parties of last resort when solving problems.

A new task force within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) convened Tuesday to rectify the “anti-Christian bias” perpetrated by the federal government under President Joe Biden. Attorney General Pam Bondi created the task force with President Donald Trump’s Feb. 6 executive order, “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.”

“My Administration will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government or unlawful conduct targeting Christians,” Trump’s order stated. “The law protects the freedom of Americans and groups of Americans to practice their faith in peace, and my Administration will enforce the law and protect these freedoms. My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified.”

The Catholic Charities Bureau was created by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin to serve the poor and needy. In furtherance of this mission, Catholic Charities provides a number of important social services. These services are open to any Wisconsinite in need, regardless of his religious background. One might think Wisconsin would want to incentivize such open-ended acts of charity by granting Catholic Charities the same benefits made available to other religious organizations. Alas, that is not the case.

Instead, the Wisconsin Supreme Court disregarded the undeniably religious purpose behind the creation of Catholic Charities and ruled that serving the poor and needy is not “typical” religious activity. Setting aside the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s blissful ignorance of both the role religion plays in charitable activity and the dictates of Catholic Social Teaching, such a ruling creates a narrow set of state-approved religious activities that limits religious activity to the likes of “observance of liturgical rituals,” “evangelical outreach,” “pastoral counseling,” “performance … of church ceremonies,” and “education in … doctrine.”

The court’s ruling unilaterally declares that any activity that is unorthodox or resembles secular activities cannot be motivated by a religious purpose. This means that church-run food pantries or community projects cannot be religious activities under Wisconsin’s limited understanding of religion.

The Becket Fund, which represents Catholic Charities at the Supreme Court, has rightfully argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision “violates the principle of church autonomy,” “entangles church and state,” and “discriminates among religions.” While a ruling in favor of Catholic Charities on these grounds would be a win for religious liberty, it would only be a Band-Aid on a bullet hole.

Without a definition of religion, courts are forced to guess at what activities mandate protection from government interference. //

However, the definition the court should adopt is that which best reflects the original meaning and is adaptable to a changing religious landscape: namely, religion means a system of beliefs and practices derived from duties to a sacred authority, which is prior to and beyond human relations and receives allegiance and worship.

This definition recognizes that religion is not merely the product of internal contemplation but also features externally compelled duties. Such an understanding was commonplace among the founders and reflects the original meaning of religion as used in the Religion Clauses. However, this definition also provides flexibility by recognizing protections for religions with external governing authorities — such as the Great Spirit common to American Indian religions — that operate similarly to God in the Abrahamic faiths but may not be covered by an exclusively theistic definition.

Moreover, supporting a single definition respects the painfully obvious truth that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are complementary provisions working together to defend a preexisting sphere of authority against government capture. Similarly, this definition recognizes something that courts have so desperately tried to deny for decades: The Religion Clauses are not antagonistic to religion or even indifferent; they exist for the benefit of religion.

Citizens’ natural right to religious liberty is one of the foundational principles of American law, so much so that, according to the Supreme Court, a “religious people” enshrined in the First Amendment a guaranteed freedom to worship as one wills. A “religious people” are not a people indifferent or antagonistic to religion. Rather, they are a people who believe the dictates of religion impose superior obligations to those imposed by the state.

So let me get this straight. If parents don't want their child enrolled in a curriculum that teaches them about sexuality and transgenderism, the burden should be on them to homeschool? All those taxes they pay to fund the public school system should just be voided? They get no say whatsoever?

Returning to the core issue, why is it this important for public schools to talk about topics that violate the religious principles of some parents? Does LGBTQ ideology really trump religious liberty? It doesn't, but Jackson thinks it does, and that's a scary proposition. Imagine a court with a few more justices in her mold, and where that would leave the country.

Consider what else her ridiculous argument could apply to. A hospital denying care based on race? That would be fine, according to Jackson, because the patient could just provide themselves with care. Of course, we all know she would never agree with that because this isn't about logical consistency. It's about partisanship and propping up a specific worldview. Remember, this is the same woman who made her "Broadway debut" in an LGBTQ play. //

Matt Whitlock @mattdizwhitlock
·
Justice Kavanaugh with the most important point of the day:

“They’re not asking you to change what’s taught in the classroom. They’re only seeking to be able to walk-out so their children aren't exposed to things that are contrary to their own beliefs.”

2:13 PM · Apr 22, 2025 //

As I said before, I'd argue this stuff shouldn't be in schools in the first place, but that's not even the issue here. Yet, Jackson still wants to trample on the rights of parents and spit on religious liberty. So is her motivation stupidity or worse? I'll let you be the judge of that.

in January, a jury ruled in Young's favor, finding the network guilty of defamation. As a result, CNN was ordered to pay Young $4 million in lost earnings and $1 million in personal damages, including pain and suffering.

Now, Young is going after the AP. //

In January, while covering the CNN trial, AP reporter David Bauder wrote that "Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan” and “worked exclusively with deep-pocketed outside sponsors like Bloomberg and Audible.” The veteran’s lawyer said that the outlet has “blatantly accused Mr. Young of engaging in criminal human smuggling.”

“Rather than restore Mr. Young's good name, the media coverage of his court victory created new libel," Daniel Lustig and Michael J. Pike, the attorneys representing Young, wrote in the complaint, adding that the AP "knew or recklessly disregarded the truth.”

Each of these cases seeks to return our nation to the original intent of religious liberty in our U.S. Constitution — an intent that was misconstrued and misinterpreted by Justice Hugo Black in his majority opinion in Eversen v. Board of Education in 1947.

It was in this case that Black inserted the phrase, “wall of separation of church and state,” words found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution but instead from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

The irony is that those who oppose any religious expression or rights of conscience for religious believers have also distorted Jefferson’s words to advance their anti-faith agenda. Up until Black’s opinion, the court had interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to support and encourage religious belief.

Unfortunately, with Black’s words, the damage was done. For the next generation, the Supreme Court, encouraged by groups such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, wielded Black’s words like a legal wrecking ball to any public expression of religious faith.

So many of our current cultural issues and rapidly deteriorating public discourse is the result of the fundamental misunderstanding and misconstruing by previous Supreme Courts after Black’s opinion.

By restoring religious liberty to its rightful place, where people can openly practice their faith, regardless of what it may be, and the government encourages, but not endorses a certain faith, can we return to the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

The jury in Mandan, North Dakota—a community that bore the brunt of the mayhem—saw through the sham. After just two days of deliberation, they delivered a verdict that didn’t just meet Energy Transfer’s $340 million damage claim but doubled down with punitive damages, totaling over $660 million. Trespass, defamation, conspiracy—the list of Greenpeace’s transgressions read like a rap sheet, and the jurors weren’t buying the group’s excuse that it was just a bit player in the mess it helped create.

Greenpeace, predictably, is crying foul, whining that this payout could bankrupt its U.S. operations. Good riddance, say many conservatives who’ve watched the group thumb its nose at law and order for years. "This is about accountability," said Trey Cox, Energy Transfer’s lead attorney from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, outside the courthouse. "Peaceful protest is American as apple pie, but what Greenpeace did—funding destruction and smearing a company trying to keep our country running—that’s not protest, that’s sabotage." People like @theCCR love to say that their right to protest is being harmed yet they don't tell you about the damage to the environment when they leave trash and destroy private properties. //

Of course, Greenpeace is pulling out all the stops to spin this as an attack on the First Amendment. “This threatens our rights to peaceful protest,” bleated Deepa Padmanabha, a Greenpeace lawyer, as if torching equipment and delaying a vital infrastructure project qualifies as "peaceful." The irony wasn’t lost on Cox, who called the ruling a “powerful affirmation” of real free speech—speech that doesn’t come with a Molotov cocktail attached. //

As one local put it outside the courthouse, “Maybe now they’ll think twice before messing with our way of life.” Amen to that. //

stripmallgrackle RedRaider85
an hour ago
Big Oil Stacked Jury implies jury tampering in the jury selection process. That sounds like a defamation/libel suit waiting to happen, unless SpleenPeace can prove the jury was rigged. Clearly, the post was intended to defame Energy Transfer. //

ConservativeInMinnesota
3 hours ago
The hypocrites abandoned hundreds of junk cars and over 48 million pounds of trash (it filled hundreds of semi trucks). Over a million was spent cleaning up their trash.

Pipelines significantly more energy efficient and environmentally friendly than trains. Those oil trains still run not too far from my house.

It was a greenwashing power trip. They earned their court loss and I hope it ruins them.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/1/dakota-access-protest-camp-crews-haul-48-million-p/

https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/10/environmentalist-protest-destroys-environment-standing-rock/. //

ThatGuy81
3 hours ago
Oh, you mean the Indian "tribe" that was holding out for more money then got pissed when they and their "sacred land" was bypassed by accommodating land owners and they got nothing, then decided to hold the company hostage by claiming environmental issues? Yeah, those greedy a**holes. //

USA_Proud
3 hours ago
ProPublica reported that Greenpeace has $22M in Revenue in 2023, with total assets of $48.4M.. Greenpeace Fund Inc; Washington, DC; Tax-exempt since Jan. 1979; EIN: 95-3313195. As such, doubtful that Energy Transfer can ultimately recover compensatory damages, much less punitive damages. They will fight it to Bankruptcy, and likely would be willing to spend every dollar on a legal challenge before they give anything to Energy Transfer. I would expect that they would get some form of legal claim against them, so that they can't commit more dollars to their legal defense. Even if they go into bankruptcy, it will be a warning shot to other 501C organizations messing around with what can rightfully be considered terroristic actions. The next step may be to find if some big donor put leverage on them to do these steps, and pursue it as a conspiratorial act.

Remarks
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP
AT THE NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST
February 6, 2025
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of Communications

For Immediate Release

U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C.

8:18 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. This is very beautiful, I must say. This is a beautiful place. And our country is starting to do very well again. It’s happening fast — a little faster than people thought.

Thank you especially to Senator Marshall for the beautiful introduction. Appreciate it very much. Thank you. Great senator you are. //

From the earliest days of our republic, faith in God has always been the ultimate source of the strength that beats in the hearts of our nation.

We have to bring religion back. We have to bring it back much stronger. It’s one of the biggest problems that we’ve had over the last fairly long period of time. We have to bring it back.

Thomas Jefferson himself once attended Sunday services held in the old House Chamber on the very ground where I stand today, so there could be nothing more beautiful than for us to gather in this majistic place — it is majestic — and reaffirm that America is and will always be “one nation under God.”

At every stage of the American story, our country has drawn hope and courage and inspiration from our trust in the Almighty. Deep in the soul of every patriot is the knowledge that God has a special plan and a glorious mission for America. And that plan is going to happen. It’s going to happen. I hope it happens sooner rather than later. It’s going to happen.

Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh
·
Follow
RFK just gave a flawless answer to Bernie Sanders asking if health care is a human right.

Bet Sanders didn't expect an answer this intelligent... he interrupted RFK IMMEDIATELY.

SANDERS: Is it a human right? Yes or no?

RFK: In the way that free speech is? It's different, because free speech costs nothing. In health care - if you smoke cigs for 20 years, and you get cancer - you are now taking from the pool of resources..-

12:12 PM · Jan 29, 2025

But Sanders wasn't done. He went off on a crazy rant about baby onesies that were produced by an organization that Kennedy had been involved with that said, "Unvaxxed unafraid" and "No vax, no problem." But apparently Sanders didn't know or couldn't absorb that Kennedy said he was no longer part of the organization or on the board. He just started shrieking his head off. Kennedy started laughing, as did Megyn Kelly, who was sitting behind him in the audience.

"Are you supportive of these onesies?" Sanders screamed.

"I'm supportive of vaccines," Kennedy calmly replied.

Sanders continued to scream, "Are you supportive of this clothing which is militantly anti-vaccine?"

Kennedy and Kelly started laughing, because it was just so ridiculous. "I'm supportive of vaccines... I want good science." //

DK1969
4 hours ago
Healthcare is not a human right because it's product of someone's labor (scientists, doctors, administrators etc.). If one has a right to product of someone's labor, it's called slavery.