‘A direct assault on civil rights law.’ Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern says the Supreme Court’s decision to decide the case of a graphic designer who wants a legal guarantee that she can turn down website commissions for same-sex ceremonies signifies that “a constitutional revolution led by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch has finally arrived.”
■ National Review’s David Harsanyi says the case gives the court “a chance to reaffirm that we don’t coerce people to say things—or refrain from saying things—in ways that violate their conscience.”
■ George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley says it “seems uniquely framed to reinforce free speech on religious values in conflicts with anti-discrimination laws.”
■ Justices passed on a chance to review a Texas school district employee’s First Amendment complaint that he was fired for criticizing a superintendent’s alleged misuse of funds.
Trucks and the First Amendment. At least one convoy of truckers headed from California to Washington, D.C., to protest at President Biden’s State of the Union address Tuesday has fizzled …
■ … but others were still on the move …
■ … as a civil rights lawyer asserts that the First Amendment doesn’t protect such protests’ right “to appropriate public streets, occupy public spaces, and obstruct transportation systems and the flow of people and goods for extended periods.”
■ Columnist Eric Zorn: “Legislatures and Congress need … seizure/forfeiture laws related to the use of vehicles to obstruct traffic for protest purposes.”
■ Stephen Colbert schools supporters of Canadian truckers who inspired the U.S. protests: “Their first amendment isn’t about freedom of speech. It establishes the Province of Manitoba.”
‘This … violates … the First Amendment.’ Two dozen media and press-freedom organizations are sounding an alarm about Arizona legislation that would forbid unauthorized close-range recordings of police …
■ … within 8 feet, to be precise; but it would let those in a car stopped by police or being questioned record such encounters.
‘There is no subjective morality test within our First Amendment jurisprudence.’ National Review senior writer Charles Cooke says a Newsweek piece in which Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk suggests Satanism doesn’t merit First Amendment protection butchers the amendment in God’s name.
■ The Freedom Forum: Arguments for regulating social media fail the First Amendment test.
■ A First Amendment scholar at Harvard explains why ads for gambling are legal, but ads for cigarettes aren’t.
TRUMP TOO SMALL™. A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office compromised a lawyer’s right to free speech when it refused to register a trademark on that phrase for use on T-shirts.
■ The court concluded the phrase “invokes a memorable exchange between President Trump and Senator Marco Rubio from a 2016 presidential primary debate, and aims to convey that some features of President Trump and his policies are diminutive.”
■ The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are siding with Twitter to oppose the use of what Techdirt calls “a sketchy copyright claim” to expose an anonymous user critical of a hedge-fund billionaire.
■ The libertarian Cato Institute sees upsides for conservatives and liberals in the launch of Trump’s Truth Social social-media platform.
